File talk:Molter Karoly.jpg

This image is still about to be deleted, since it does not fit into any of the tags available. Requesting permission is a good idea, only if the site has rights of authorship over it. If not, it could be spared by tagging it as fair use, with an adequate rationale. In any case, the original tag implied a user holds authorship, and this is not the case. Dahn 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx, i see others are not that tolerated with a small picture like this; And YES, the site has the ownership, it's the property of the Hungaryan national Széchényi library (where is hosted in HU version) ( web of the EN version>> http://www.oszk.hu/frame_en.htm ) Elmao 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, please don't post comments in mainspace. I repeat: does the library have authorship rights, and does it state so? did you obtain from them a release for the content, or do they state that the image is public domain? I suppose you may use the image under fair use and tag it as such, but you need to provide a rationale and limit its use to one page. Dahn 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a public library has public informations usually.... Elmao 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then you should be able to easily find a clear statement that this is the case, or their answer that this is the case. Please don't revert, and please don't post comments in mainspace. Dahn 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNU clearly does not apply in this case. Unless you are the copyright holder or they clearly state that their material is GNU, you are misusing the label. Dahn 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So which one? If it's free for everyone? hmm? .. (in any case i sent a letter to the library management, and will see if i can use this "treasure". (exactly this is how it's named the section). Elmao 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the GNU licence does not mean, that you have to be the creator of the image .. Elmao 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNU implies that the creator or copyright holder released it under GNU.

I had deleted your "update" as I would delete statements such as "If this is not enoght to keep the picture, I also can ask for permission, from that site, as I did on this picture" and "So which Licence applies to this ?? I'm really confused about categorization of licenses on WP" - comments and requests for assistance don't belong in mainspace (i.e.: in articles, in pictures, in templates etc.), but on talk pages. Of course, since the image is going to be deleted if things are to be left like this, it should not matter as much that you misused mainspace. But this could serve as a reminder.

Above, I have indicated several possible solutions for this situations (and I gave similar advice for another picture). You may pick whichever you want, but you will have to pick one in order for this picture not to be deleted, and you will have to stop adding false licenses. The letter is a good idea, but, if favorable, their reply would have to be filed on wikimedia (I'm not sure how one is supposed to do that, but you make ask an admin for help). I looked on their site in the English version, and they had no clear statement that the material is uncopyrighted. Dahn 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply absurd to say that a public library only has free content. It has content that it makes available for public viewing, with the rights and obligations this implies, and not content that anyone may mirror. And copyrights are not the state's property. Dahn 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the love of me: I could let go of all the other mistakes you make in writing English, but why would you spell "Hungarian" as "hungaryan"? Dahn 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmao, if you've decided that the picture is not free after all and are going for fair use, then do use an adequate tag, write an adequate rationale, and limit the picture's use to one article. See here and, if this is still problematic, ask someone here. Please stop experimenting, and accept the fact that, if the image is new and non-public domain, you will be able to use it in, at best, one article (not all around wikipedia). Dahn 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 90% sure it's free (or i can get the right to post here), and i will wait a response from the library. I also asked admins. Until they respond i will wait and see how to modify it. thx Elmao 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmao, at the risk of repeating myself: if the library answers that it is the copyright holder, and that you are allowed to reuse the picture, wikipedia would still need evidence that this is the case, You need to ask an admin how that answer is filed (I've only seen it done on Commons - which is, btw, where free content should preferably go). It does not matter if the answer is in Hungarian or Romanian or Chinese: it would just have to stand as proof. This also means that you will have to file the actual reply, not a rendition of it.

With or without that approval, you could still tag it for fair use, but with a proper license and a rationale for that license. Note that fair use usually implies it can only be used in one article. Dahn 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmao: you take responsibility for the rationale you provide, and I cannot author one for you. What you wrote there does not strike one as an adequate rationale (you have a template to use here), and you are still posting comments in namespace. I have half a mind to delete it, because, in this form, it is misleading - consider rephrasing it to something logical. Dahn 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmao, I did not and will not give you my consent to remove my comments on this page, making their removal an instance of vandalism (though I will assume good faith on your part). Charging me with personal attacks is absurd: I pointed out that your edits in mainspace contain spelling errors (not to say "are riddled with"), which harms this project in more ways than one. I have also told you thatr, in this case, I cannot simply correct them, since you take responsibility for the fair use rationales you provide. Let's not make this into a mountain, and please don't make me report you to AN/I. Dahn 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmao: most of what you cite there has no relevancy whatsoever. For starters: you have made errors in mainspace (I don't mind those on the talk page and do not comment on them), which means that my comment is a factual way to improve the article. Secondly, and this is where it gets important: the guideline you cite clearly states that you need my permission in order to delete or in any way modify my comments. I gave you no permission and will give you none, so you are breaking with the very ruling you cite. Do what you will to your comments, but refrain from deleting mine - especially when they indicate that you have a problem with writing in proper English, which, if uncorrected, is bound to be detrimental to mainspace. And I don't care much if you "do not want total deletion of the comments", I care that you deleted one of mine. Dahn 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To readers: Elmao's comments I was replying to above, which he has since deleted himself, can be picked from this page's history. Dahn 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]