I'm unhappy that this image was deleted without any attempt at discussion on its page. An uppity bot is one thing; common courtesy in actual discussion is quite another. Slacspeak up! 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was tagged as replaceable for seven days. I understand that you didn't know this but it is impossible for me to contact all the uploaders that hasn't bin notified for all the images I delete. If you disagree that this image is replaceable I am open for discussion. Rettetast 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I accept that you were within policy. It's certainly not a policy I like, but that's my business. Slacspeak up! 08:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thanks for deleting some of my user pages. The importance of little things like that can get overlooked... GDallimore (Talk) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz]16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how fair use rationale for "Image:Richmarsland.JPG" was not valid. I will give you 100's of image examples that exist with poor/no fair use rationale but should not be on WP. --Mikecraig 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was an image illustrating a living person and therefore generally considered replaceable with a freely licensed image. The fact that he is not photographed often do in my opinion not justify fair use. If you find other images like this, please tag them with {{subst:rfu}}. Rettetast 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image you tagged for deletion has a detailed fair use rationale, and as such you are required to state your reasons why the rationale is not valid on the talk page; if not, the tag can be removed. I uploaded the image for a specific use in the named article, and I believe its use satisfies the terms of the licence. I'd certainly appreciate your comments if you don't think this is the case. Regards. PC78 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on the talk page. Thanks for telling me this. I had not noticed this. Rettetast 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should explain on the image description page why the image meets the criteria for fair use. You can find the criteria at WP:FUC. Also see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for description on how to write a good rationale. Rettetast 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand why the Jack Deveraux image was deleted. You wrote: "Thanks for uploading Image:Jack_Deveraux.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information."
The photo was used for publicity on NBC.com, why would that not be fair use? Also, considering it is a picture of the person in question, I can't fathom how it wouldn't be fairly necessary to the article. Can you explain this in a way that does not sound like a robot? Anything you can tell me, would be helpful but... note that the way it was worded before didn't make any comprehensible sense to me. --Harlequin212121 04:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for using fair use at wikipedia can be found at WP:FUC. An image that is replaceable with another image can not be used as fair use on Wikipedia according to the first criteria at WP:FUC. This image illustrates a living person. Such images are generally not accepted under the fair use criteria if there is not a really good reason why a freely licensed image can be created. Hope this clarifies thing for you. Rettetast 09:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a picture available for free for everyone on NBC's website, be considered a freely licensed image? --Harlequin212121 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. A freely licensed image could be used by anyone for any purpose. You can't do that with promotional images you find on websites. Rettetast 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not sure how you can possibly find any other image? He's a soap opera character, any image of his is going to have to be taken from a promotional image. If he appeared in any other picture other than an officially sanctioned NBC photo, he'd simply be the actor who plays him, not the character. --Harlequin212121 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That changes thing. Off course it is not possible to replace an image of a fictional character. Just reupload the image and state that in the rationale. Rettetast 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note you have blocked the above editor. I would suggest giving an appropriate note on the talkpage, especially as it appears that the last contribution was back in April. The editor may yet return to WP, unaware that he had been "reprimanded".
I did comment at WP:AN regarding using a time expiry block on an editor who appears to be no longer contributing, but I of course support your decision. LessHeard vanU 10:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. This was done to quikly by me. The block was not in line with policy since there was no need to block and I will unblock. Rettetast 10:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry if this sounds as if I am disagreeing with myself, and thus you as above, but once you had placed the block I am more than happy for it to stand since it will remain in the editors log. This will alert any future admin to past infractions. For similar reasons a note should be left at the editors talkpage. This all assumes that the editor will return at some date. If you have already unblocked then this question is moot. I support all your actions in this matter. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why the image I uploaded on 'Jack Hargreaves' recently has been deleted?I own the copyright of all images of the individual where not otherwise claimed and was ready to allow its use in Wikipedia. Rgds Simon Baddeley 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image had no licensing information other than that you held the copyright. Every image should have a license. I see that you have tagged som of your uploads as {{GFDL}}. Just upload it again with the license and remember to explain why you owh the copyright. Rettetast 11:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that (in my opinion) it's a borderline call on whether it's replacable or not, but I've personally never seen a fair use image of the band from this period; the only images I've seen are those types I mentioned in the image page; If it is decided to be deleted, I understand the reasons for the decision. TheHYPO 04:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of saying "Publicity photos, distributed as part of press kits by celebrities, corporations, candidates for political office, and others, may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use." Wikipedia:Publicity photos if people just turn around and delete these?! --Smkolins 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
may. For all the criteria for using a non free image on wikipedia, see WP:FUC. Rettetast 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so which of the 10 points are missed with the pictures you posted to my talk page?
No. 1. They are replaceable. Pictures of people who are still alive are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. Rettetast 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if they aren't to be found online? --Smkolins 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. They are still replaceable. Rettetast 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Wikipedia allowed people to delete their own images. Everytime,I log in I find another image of mine* tagged. Please stop leave notices, just put the image out of its misery and get it over with. if you got a problem with my images, just delete no questions asked. Don't tag it, i don't care. Just delete it then and there.
By "mine", I mean I uploaded, but obviously don't own it.
Hey Rettetast, why are you tagging all of my uploaded images for removal?[edit]
Why have you tagged all of the images which I have recently uploaded to Wikipedia? I have been posting images (along with the required "fair use rationale") that are unfairly being deleted by you. I am especially upset that you have tagged Image:FarrellLion.gif for removal, as this image is a non-copyrighted illustration of a lion, which is the Monsignor Farrell High School mascot. If this is the way that overzealous/malicious editors like you operate here on Wikipedia, then I won't waste my time posting images or editing articles anymore. Citizen Dick 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am sorry that you feel this way. I have not removed any rationales provided by you. I only tagged the images becuse they did not have any rationale. Further I will not delete the images I have tagged. I will leave that to another admin. Why don't you just provide a rationale for the images as requred by WP:FUC? Rettetast 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-uploaded the picture for Baccara album "Baccara" 1977 and provided it with a fair use rationale. Would that be OK? I just want to get it right in the future.
Looks fine,but there are still some fair use images in your upload log that has no rationale. You should tag them to. You should also remove the no rationale template for the images where you have added a tag. Rettetast 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okie doke. I'll check the rest as well. Tusen tack för hjälpen för resten och lycka till med artiklarna dina i fortsättningen.
Fair use rationale on Jung Chang and Mineko Iwasaki pictures[edit]
Hi there. I take it you deleted the two pictures. Can you please explain why you did that? I pointed out that no free versions were available and that they should be fair use. John Smith's 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also could you please explain how I should re-submit those two images (or similar copyrighted ones, as there are no free ones) with the appropriate tags, descriptions, etc. John Smith's 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, all fair use pictures of people are going to be deleted except in the situation you mentioned? Ok, just checking. John Smith's 09:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Sorry for the late reply. I see that you have gotten a reply from Howcheng. Generally, images of living persons are not accepted as fair use because they are replaceable because a freely licensed imaged easily can be created. Rettetast 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale on Keiko Nakazawa picture[edit]
Yes, I would the appreciate the same as John Smith's request for the Keiko Nakazawa image. Please advise.
Hi there. Please see the reply above. Rettetast 14:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Would you please more clearly explain what you mean (perhaps by way of example) by "free licensed image" that can be "easily created?" I am not a photographer. I am not personally acquainted with Ms. Nakazawa or anybody associated with Ms. Nakazawa. In any case, Ms. Nakazawa has retired from the adult modeling profession for nearly two decades, and has retreated into private life and has not been seen in any new, publicized photographs since her career ended in the 1980s. In light of this, I am at a loss as to how a new, free licensed image would be easily created. What alternatives are available? Please help. User:Buried Alien 14:14, 11 July 2007 (PDT)
Hi again. With fair use images illustrating living persons the question is if there is reasonably possible to create an image of the person, and not about your ability to create such an image. Osama bin Laden is maybe the best example of a person where we can't expect new images to be created. Fair use of living persons has also bin accepted where the person avoids the public and has not bin seen in a while. I don't know about this image but it seems to me that Ms. Nakazawa just have retired and therefore is out of the public eye, just like retired sports-people where we don't allow fair use. Have I understood correctly? Rettetast 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rette, and thank you for your continued interest and patience. The image in question was from a commercially sold photobook featuring Ms. Nakazawa that was published in 1988. The book went out of print sometime in the early 1990s and has not been reissued. Ms. Nakazawa's public career as an adult model/actress ended in 1989, and she has not been commercially photographed since. Reasonably, that does not make a new, noncommercial photograph of Ms. Nakazawa emerging at some point in the future as impossible it would for, say Osama bin Laden, but it is unlikely. Moreover, the intent of the image is not to show Ms. Nakazawa as she might appear today as middle-aged private citizen of Japan, but to represent how she appeared at the height of her career as an adult model during the 1980s. Is there any practicable compromise we can pursue to fulfill this need? Let's continue to discuss. User:Buried Alien 15:05, 11 July 2007 (PDT)
Sorry for the late answer. I saw your query but haven't had the time to respond before now...work. You have a valid point if the intent of the image was not merely to show what Ms. Nakazawa looks like. Such an image is not replaceable. But the you run into another problem with our Non-free content criteria. Criteria number eight. Does this image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic". If there are something you have to illustrate and can't describe in words the image should be ok, but in my understanding the image was merely illustrating Ms. Nakazawa. In no doubt the image increased the value of the article, but in my view the image was not vital to understand it. Rettetast 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Rette, and thank you again for your continued attention on this matter. My opinion is that the illustration in question did significantly contribute to readers' understanding of the topic, as it served not only to identify Ms. Nakazawa as a unique persona in her field, but also to illustrate the visual appeal that resulted in the success she experienced during the height of her career as descried in the article. This is information cannot adequately be conveyed via verbal description alone. Ms. Nakazawa has had predecessors, peers, and successors in her field, but was a unique persona with a unique visual appeal. The image, I believe, was helpful in distinguishing her from her colleagues and provide an understanding of her that could not be gathered from a verbal biodata report alone. There are numerous categories of persons for whom an image of their appearance would probably be unimportant to understand their significance (i.e. inventors, educators, political leaders, etc.) Given that the subject in question is a career photographic model and film actress, however, a photograph would logically supplement an essential aspect of her life and work. Please consider. User:Buried Alien. 14:54, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
I have asked Quadell for his input on the image. He is on of the Non-free content policy wonks and will hopefully give us a good answer. I feel that I'm on thin ice when it comes to WP:NFCC#8. Rettetast 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rette. I'm completely out of my league when it comes to Wikipedia's criteria for permitting the use of images. I can only leave it in the hands of the authorities and hope that they will understand and ultimately agree with my perspective. We'll wait and see. User:Buried Alien 15:25, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
Greetings. This exact topic has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Japanese erotic actresses. Basically, portraits of living people are considered replaceable (thus failing WP:NFCC #1) if someone could reasonably be expected to photograph her. Retired Japanese erotic actresses might allow a portrait of theirs to be taken, but they might not. One successfully sued a photographer for invading her privacy by taking her picture without her permission. If you want to use the image, you should figure out the e-mail address (or mailing address) for her former publisher and ask if you can have a freely-licensed image of her. (See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for examples.) If they say no, or if they ignore your request for months, then the consensus at Fair Use Review is that a non-free image can not be found or created in a way that won't get you sued. But if no one has attempted to get a free image in this way, then we can't assume the image is non-replaceable. I hope this helps. Notify on my talk page if you have further questions. – Quadell(talk) (random) 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted almost 70% of the total text from Trinity College Dublin[edit]
For your kind information, I want to let you know, while deleting a photo from the Trinity College Dublin article, you deleted 70% of the total text. Please have a look,
I hope it was not intentional. Niaz bd 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. This must be a bug in the automated tool Twinkle. The tool is supposed to only remove the image. I will alert the developers and check my similar edits. Thank you for the notice. Rettetast 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AzaToth is asking if you could undelete the image and all associated edits to the pages and see if exactly the same will happen again. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article I contributed on Rnajit Naik was deleted by you. I had aslo contributed the same article for another website www.goaarsofindia.org. But the article belongs to me. Please restore it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyotinaik (talk • contribs)
Will do. Please sign your messages on talk pages by typing ~~~~. This will automaticly produce a link to your userpage and the current date and time. Rettetast 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty new to Wiki tbh, but I can't see why you've removed the image? I have permision to use it as I know the guy that took the photo from his microlight! I did update the copyright info too.
So would you like to explain your reasons please :)
Hi. Wikipedia is partly about free content. Therefore we don't allow images that has not bin released under a free lisence such as GFDL. You can get information on how to obtain a license we can use at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Rettetast 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rettetast, thankyou for removing vandalism on my user page. The IP must have really hated me seeing that he also deleted my comments at WP:RFA. HirohisatTalk 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please restore this image. It is defiantly not a "a bit-for-bit identical copy" of an image on commons, the image on commons clearly doesn't have a transparent background, and considering its use here on en.wikipedia, the clear background is more appropriate, thank you for your time--VectorPotentialTalk 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The image was incorrectly tagged by metsbot. Rettetast 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --VectorPotentialTalk 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious your reasoning behind adding the EL cleanup tag to Pro-choice, and was wondering what you thought of the pro-life EL section as well. Thanks.-Andrew c[talk] 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is way to many links there. Per WP:EL links should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. The same goes for a pro-life. I did not have the time to check for my self which that should be included. Maybe you know more about the topic to make a selection. Rettetast 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a break from Wikipedia after contributing for a little over a year, specifically because of this kind of over-zealous attack on useful, and (in any other context), clearly fair use content. So if you want to mark the image for deletion, feel free. I do think it would be good of you to find a replacement if you're so certain that it's easily replaced, though. -Harmil 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the tagged the the image as disputed because of your complaint. Please provide a detailed fair use rationale where you also explain why the image is irreplaceable. And please assume good faith. Rettetast 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you are assuming good faith in deleting other people's images. Maikel 07:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted before I came across this note by you. I'm really not active enough these days to respond immediately. It's too bad because this is an image for which Wikipedia has no access to a replacement, and I think the rationale on the page was quite sufficient to explain why the Nobel Prize ceremony wasn't going to just happen again so that someone could come along and photograph it for Wikipedia. -Harmil 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From your note on the Image:GMC_Balayogi.jpg picture, it looks like I may not understand the fair use principle. Please help me in finding the appropriate tag for this image. It is a publicity photo from the Lok Saba website and it is not explicitely copyrighted at all. It would be a shame to take down this photo since it may be the only one of him. Unreal128
I see no that the person is dead and therefore it would be impossible to replace it. I have removed my tagging but the image has to have a detailed rationale where you explain this. See the information on the image page. Also note that you don't have to explicitly claim copyright. Rettetast 09:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message about the fair use of the picture I uploaded. You are probably right to say it would be quite easy to find a free-licensed alternative. My question is whether I am expected to track down or make the alternative? Or can I just wait for it to be deleted and someone else take up the mantle? It is not really something on which I have time to spend. --poorsodtalk 07:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I searched in Flickr and found this free-licensed image. I have uploaded it to commons. It may not be the best picture, but it is better than having an unfree image.
Also wikipedia i a volunteer project. You do what you want and nobody expect you to do anything. But everything you do is great. Best regards. Rettetast 09:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better image. Rettetast 10:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rettetast. You or your bot put a warning about a missing Fair Use rationale on a redirect, where it's not a lot of use.[1] I guess you'd better teach the bot to follow redirects and not post till it gets to the destination page ? If that's possible. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hm. I am using Howchengs image tool to tag the images and not a bot. From the history of that talk page it seems like Howcheng is aware of the problem. Thanks for the notice. Rettetast 22:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, why should that picture get deleted? I just don't get the explanation. Maikel 22:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It fails the first fair use criteria because it is replaceable. Any image illustrating a living person can easily be replaced by another image of the same person. See WP:FUC. Rettetast 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which image do you suggest as replacement? Maikel 06:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there exist a freely licensed image but you probably know more about this person and how to obtain an image. Remember that even if there doesn't exist an image now the image is still replaceable if an image can be created. I see that you have commented about filing a complaint about my behavior at Harmils user talk page. You can try WP:RFC, but your real problem is our Non-free_content guideline. Note that there is consensus to don't allow fair use images of living persons. I support this because of the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. How is this going to be done if we allow Non-free content? But back to your image. I suggest that you dispute my tagging and explain why its irreplaceable. I will not be the deciding admin for that image. Does that sound OK? Rettetast 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption "this person lives ergo a "more free" image can easily be obtained" is simply dead wrong. Quite to the contrary, free images are far more difficult to obtain than non-free ones, and for many subjects simply no images exist. Even if a "more free" image could be obtained, there is still the question of quality. I might travel to Paris to pull a paparazzi job on Shelton when he's shopping for groceries, but that image would not be of equivalent quality to the disputed one, which after all shows Shelton at work during his Freak Bros era and is of high artistic quality. And even if you can come up with a better image, there is simply no reason to delete the fair use image from the servers.
I'm sorry, what you are doing appears to me overzealous, not based on good faith, and equivalent to vandalism in that it is destroying other people's work. It's also a case of moving the goalposts. If your thing is to make Wikipedia "more free" then come up with the images yourself rather than bossing other contributors. I urge you to reconsider your actions. Maikel 10:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture was deleted, of course you didn't come up with a replacement. Now the article on Gilbert Shelton has to go without an image of Gilbert Shelton. Congratulations. Maikel 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. Rettetast 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, what part of "I am no longer working on this project. I have requested that all work I have worked on be removed. Please respect my wishes and do not post here." do you not understand? --Drmike 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience. I am tagging images that are violating our fair use policy and adds notices to talk pages automatically. If you get another notice, just remove it. Rettetast 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:
the person(s), product, event, or subject in question
where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
is unclear to you?
He's dead and burned. You can't create a free photo of someone 30 years dead. It's a promotional shot. It's used to illustrate the person in question. In short, the fair use rationale is right there. You might consider reading the things you tag, and then applying a little thought before going on such a "helpful" tagging spree. Otherwise, people will think you're a right bleeding muppet. -- GWO
Please read the rest of the tag "To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the image and copyright information. Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms." Rettetast 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the HK416 image is replaceable with a free one; could you please show me this image? X360 11:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somone can just take an image of the weapon and since a freely image can be created it is replaceable by wikipedia standards. Please see WP:NFCC criteria 1. Rettetast 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who can take a photo of this weapon? Clearly you are ignorant in this area because no one has access to the HK417 except its maker; Heckler & Koch. No one can take a free photo. Thanks for just deleting two images that can't be replaced. X360 09:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the image. Please dispute the tagging as I explained on your talk page and explain why it not replaceable. The image also needs a rationale. Rettetast 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain why it can't be replaced (I left a template on the HK417 image with an explanation; could you please reupload it so you can see this?), but the image was still deleted. There was also a fair use rationale (and still is on the reuploaded HK416 image). Also, you seem to be knowledgeable in the area of copyright, but yet you state a replacement image should be 'found'. That would not be a free replacement. X360 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have realised, but you deleted two images; HK416 and HK417. You have only reuploaded the HK416 one. You deleted the HK417 image before even bothering to read the dispute tag on why it should not be deleted. X360 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late answer I have bin busy. I did not delete any of the images. I just tagged them for deletion. That means that for the 417 image another admin has reviewed you the image and you read your dispute tag and found that the image failed WP:NFCC. If you still think the image meets WP:NFCC, you should go to WP:DRV or talk to the deleting admin. I found an image of the HK416 on commons and has put that into the article. Rettetast 08:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately the image in Wiki Commons actually has incorrect licensing; the U.S. Army does not use the HK416 so it is not possible for a soldier to take a photo. Only recently U.S. Delta Force has been starting to use them, but not at the time the image was uploaded. The only people who had access to the weapon in 2005 was Heckler & Koch, and that photo is media released by them (it is clear the photo was taken in a studio). X360 11:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will nominate the image for deletion at commons but I still think the image fails WP:NFCC sice a free image can be created, even if it still hasn't. Rettetast 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Connell66 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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I would like to point out that the other images [2] uploaded by User:Rdpaperclip were all attached to a deleted, speedy deleted, and salted article. Images [3] uploaded by User:Achidiac are in the same boat. You might want to tag them as well, if they haven't already been. —Travistalk 14:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you most humbly for adressing the manner of this image. I have (attempted) to correct my wrongs but I am A little unsure. Thank you regardless --Genjuu Mugon 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a great rationale. Thank you. Rettetast 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the heads-up on the missing rationale for "Image:Harold.jpg" my mistake. but i have a question for you: once the rationale is added, how does one remove the image from the 'mising rationale' category that appears at the bottom of the image page? J. Van Meter 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the {{no fair use rationale}} tag as you have done. Thanks for the rationale. Rettetast 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed it. I havent noticed that function in the image copyright tag before. I don't know if it is used to anything..yet. Thanks for the rationale. Rettetast 13:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks - how did you do that (remove the category, that is)? several of my uploaded photos, which do have a rationale listed, still appear in the "no rationale" category. J. Van Meter 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message concerning my picture I placed in the Beauty and the Beast article. I actually inserted that image some considerable time ago, and I was not aware there was anything further to fill in at the time, if such requirement existed. The rationale I've just added should fill the requirement; if not, feel free to delete.
Harper 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello again, can you see my second question under "Image:Harold.jpg" -- thanks. J. Van Meter 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Review Important External Link That Was Not Spam[edit]
On July 17, I added a Site for Atrial Fibrillation patients, www.StopAfib.org, to the External Links for the Atrial Fibrillation page. Shortly thereafter, that link was removed with the citation below, stating that the link was spam (it was not).
(cur) (last) 20:06, 17 July 2007 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) m (30,335 bytes) (Reverted edits by Mcth (talk) to last version by Geoffrey Wickham) (undo)
I was told by fellow users that you would review it and most likely re-instate it when you realized that it contains valuable information and isn't spam. It's been almost 2 weeks and that hasn't happened. Please do review it and see that it is more valuable than some of the other External Links.
In the meantime, a medical device company has posted it's marketing site (www.ex-maze.com) as an External Link and referenced that it discusses the original Maze procedure (I don't find it there). As of now, their link remains, but I don't see anything at that site other than marketing hype, and surely not the resource that they claim.
Please review this situation. Thank you.
Also, this external link was reversed from a couple of other related pages as well.
In my opinion the link shoulf not be included per WP:EL. Please note that wikipedia is not a link farm. If you still mean that the link satisfies WP:EL I will not revert you again. Rettetast 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All The best to you Rettetast, for managing pics destined to be used in an article of my colleagues. Thanks for the tips on tagging. --Rdpaperclip 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
