User talk:Bkell/July 2006 through August 2006

Undoing the WORK of others

If you want to delete Joan Riudavets-Moll's photograph, I won't try to stop you. But I will say this: Wikipedia is a lesser place due to people like you, who take the time to delete the work of others (destruction) but won't take the time to build (construction). You can easily run a search on "Google Images" and find out where that photo came from. Stop being lazy. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad to see you made some positive effort on this...but when the photos were uploaded Wikipedia had a 'fair use' policy which stated that news photos could be uploaded without copyright if the use was deemed 'fair use.' It seems that policy has now changed. The result is that it is now a cumbersome process to secure a photo that won't be deleted by Wikibots. Therefore, I am not contributing more photos at this time.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

BKell,

I couldn't care LESS about 'work' or 'talk'. The original purpose of my being on Wikipedia was to contribute to the furtherance of world knowledge. I am now a little disillusioned, as the Wikipedia system fails to protect work and has become instead a place of 'edit wars' and wasted efffort. So, you can continue to remove images if you wish...it is NOT contributing to the furtherance of world knowledge to remove a picture of a 114-year-old man. AND, I find it hypocritical that Wikipedia, which once touted 'fair use,' now seems to want 'volunteers' to do the work of licensing for them...for what? So they can sell the images? There is simply no reason for 'OrphanBot.' When was the last time a newspaper complained about using a photo from old news? Look at the end result: if a picture is worth a thousand words, well you just 'deleted' a thousand. Thank you. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for uploaded photos regarding Lauren Jones

Hi! I understand that the images that I placed for reference for Lauren Jones were removed. Is it possible that you could help me find or state the accurate information so that the images can go up again? I need guidance. You can send me info at Lauren Jones under my talk. Thank you for your time!

Fair-use image removed from gallery

Hello, Tristanb. I've removed Image:Tnzs screenshot.png from your image gallery and replaced it with a link to the image, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine that you've removed that image from my gallery page.

At first read, i thought you'd taken it from the actual article (in which it is being used fairly). If you're on a spree, you may want to more explicitly state that it is User pages that don't allow fair use, and that you're only removing from User pages. - Tristanb 04:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I did explicitly state that… how would you word what I wrote? I'm not exactly on a spree, but I've been handling a few free-use images each day in this manner for the past few days. —Bkell (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have used a smiley face in my message, it does seem quite accusatory, I didn't intend to be rude. :-D

I just meant maybe explicitly saying that the image will not be removed from any article, but just from the user page. Hearing that an image you've made is about to be deleted can be upsetting, and it can be easy to jump to conclusions without reading the rest of your comment more carefully.

Didn't mean the word "spree" in a negative sense. I just thought if you were copying and pasting the comment to lots of people, you could maybe add that clarification.

But yeah, keep up good work. Tristanb 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Clockwork Robot

Me again, I put the information on a page and it was deleted off again and re-directed. I think I should include it on the main list of monsters however someone keeps altering the page by re-directing to stuff which dosen't even have the information.

I will try to sort the monster list page. If there are any other ways of getting it on a page please tell me.

Image:Alexandra of greece 2.jpg

Wow, that takes me back — uploading that photograph was my first ever edit to the encyclopedia, before I'd figured out the rules. Thanks for the notice, I've updated the page with a source. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A star for you

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping me with image tags and for introducing me to the lofty world of the ~~~~. (Even though that was a while ago.) CliffHarris 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob Mackie

I don't remember the source, so you may remove the picture. Ccson 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Imagewatermark template for Commons images

Thanks for making use of the template; I've been following along, somewhat.

Honestly, I created the template with minimal feedback from the Village Pump, and I haven't even looked at the Commons until very recently (I can't even navigate it), so I have no idea if there would be an equivalent there. Sorry.

Now that we have a good number of these, though, it'll be interesting to see how this is all dealt with. (Especially the User:Kotoviski ones. He seems to have gone off-wiki.) –Unint 03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Athens image

Please read the note at the top of my Talk page before posting these notices. Adam 08:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't cause me any distress, but I put the note there to save conscientious people like yout good self from having to post these notices. I uploaded a lot of images in the days before the current policy was in place, and they can now all be deleted without further reference to me. I will change "photos" to "images" to make this clear. Adam 09:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Clockwork Robot

I understand about fair-use images now and I apoligise for any problems. Also I tried to move my information to the list of monsters but it was soon deleted and when I tried to edit I had been blocked. However it soon went off and I can now edit pages (I think it was because they thought I was impostering because of Clockwork Robot/clockworkrobot). However I would like to know who I can talk to about getting my information across.

Thanks again for the information.

Tevenphage.png

Thanks for the heads up on that spelling mistake. I no longer have the original vector files (lost them in my hardware crash of 2006), sorry.. Adenosine | Talk 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:ShionSono-award.jpg

Thanks for helping me clear confusion on the copyright tags and things of such nature. I hadn't even realized there was a 'promotional' one. Thanks =). --Revoish 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kris Aquino

Here you go... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kristinaaquino.jpg --Nino Gonzales 05:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

imagewatermark on Image:Typography1.jpg

Removal of fair use images from username space makes sense yeah... but how can Image:Typography1.jpg be inappropriate since I am the creator and I allow it to be used on wikipedia? --Oblivious 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked from Angela, in IRC, at the time of upload, whether i can upload and tag it GFDL-self even though it has © symbol and she said its fine. I suppose these policies weren't introduced back then eh? Anyway, thanks for letting me know. --Oblivious 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Székely village.jpg

Thanks for your message. The image in the corner refers to the region Háromszék. It contains elements from the old 19th century coat of arms of this area and was created by myself. --KIDB 08:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Orcyno.ogg

Can't get Winamp to play the file? Appears that Mac version of Audacity opens the file just fine =) Did you try other programs? Do you have the full version of Winamp? (I remember hearing something about the lite version not being able to play Vorbis files; I have never had anything else besides full Winamp and it's always been able to play .oggs for me). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Jamelia_-_See_It_In_A_Boy's_Eyes_(CD_1).jpg

I uploaded the image while I was finishing the article... the article has now been posted and the image is in place. User talk:TopopMAC1 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FU gallery

In general I agree with you, there is no way to justify those galleries of fair use images as a fair use. However, there are no articles on the teams, so having the logos on the conference page is potentially useful, as they do illustrate the organization, item, or event in question to some extent. Someone on Wikipedia talk:Fair use might be able to clarify this for you further.--Peta 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

SLC flag

How is a city flag copyrighted? I thought that went against the entire concept fo a flag. -Branddobbe 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Same question, this time in the context of the Boston flag, whcih you say is under 'fair use'. Surely a flag is public domain? Wikipete 11:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

phenss

hi there I meant to say that I am the copyright holder as I took all the images

feel free to use gdfl peter

So if an image is just a picture of a person and not an event poster what do I tag that is?

1255 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)also if the picture is copyrighted 1996 to 2006, what do I tag it is?

phenss

thanks

you are correct, those ones that you mentioned are courtesy of australians at war website, which I received permission from the owner that he would love the idea of wikifying his website but due to its size, he doesnt have time. YOu can verify the corect tag by contacting his email.

once again thanks

Peter --Phenss 09:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkifying fair use images

Thanks for your work on fair use image violations! Normally, I just remove the images in question. Sometimes I linkify them if they are part of a gallery and in particular a gallery of contributions by a particular user. In this case, the gallery was not of that user's contributions, but a variety of images for their personal use. I should have just removed them perhaps. --Durin 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'd like to echo my thanks too - for your time spent on working with Wikipedia's image files. --HappyCamper 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:BNSF railway logo.jpg)

Image was replaced by Image:BNSF.png. The jpg is safe to delete. Slambo (Speak) 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dowodca2PSP.jpg

User:Silar maybe Marek Silarski but is he the copyright holder? This looks like a studio portrait, which means the studio owns the copyright (unless they released it to Silar). We would need Silar to explain. -Nv8200p talk 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved Image:Dowodca2PSP.jpg to WP:PUI.

Wikipedia is not an image hosting site. Orphan, by itself, is a legitimate reasons for deletion. By policy, all images on Wikipedia must be in an article with encyclopedic text. You can argue the point on WP:IFD or you can move the image to Wikimedia Commons. -Nv8200p talk 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Or find a relevant article to link the images to. -Nv8200p talk 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

JPG conversion to PNG

I did realize that JPGs slightly change color of logos such as the one I converted. After i saw this, I went to the official site where the original uploader got the image. This is where I got the new version from, but I do not know if that was originally JPG also. This is why I uploaded a new version of the PNG version. I will try to find a better version to upload from. Thank you for your note as I am not too knowledgable with many computer programs and the like. I now understand the difference between the JPG versions and PNG versions and I will try to upload a better version. Thanks again. --WillMak050389 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured out that version was JPG and I was going to try to find one that was GIF or PNG to replace it. Thank you for the heads up. --WillMak050389 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Licensing of Bodies of water in Vancouver image

Responding to your writing on my talk page... The image has a GFDL tag by myself. I believe the image's history has always shown it to be derived (by me) from a public domain image: Image:Vancouver_Landsat.jpg Hope that clears things up for you. --Ds13 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

GG Allin Page

Hi, thanks for the message you left. I need help! Please help. Basically, the ggallin001.jpg you marked as needing licensing fixing etc. I'm a bit out of my depth with what consitutes what exactly and dont want to make a mistake etc. I read thru the links you provided and i wasn't sure, but just quickly i changed the license to it. Then probably realizing it was wrong or unsure, I recreated that original image i uploaded, called it ggallin.jpg and posted it for the article, saying that i owned the rights to that image and release it to the public etc. but it didnt appear in the tag for it for some reason. Meanwhile, the ggallin001.jpg still is on the server and probably needs to be deleted. I got an autobot message saying something about it to be deleted in 7 days etc.

Could you perhaps help me out a little in choosing the right license and fixing the whole thing up so its not a problem anymore, please? First time ever I've dealt with all these wikipedia licensing tags etc and it takes a little experience before i'll be better in the future at it.

So, please leave me a message on my talkpage and discuss it a little bit with me till I understand 100%.

my talk page. —G.g. 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo removal on a user page

Hi Bkell

I'm aware that the logo of Venstre may used not be used by everyone for everything, however I'm somewhat puzzled that you object to me using it since I've been a registred member of this party for almost ten years, I've stood as a candidate for them, and been elected to a number of positions within said party. All registred members of Venstre may use this image for informative purposes and - in fact for everything that is not seriously damaging for the party. So according to party laws, I'm personally allowed to use it very freely. The official webpage of Venstre states (listed under the "Press section"): "The logos may be used freely, but not modified in any way or manipulated." Do we have any tag that would cover this better? The infobox is simply there to show that I'm one of the few wikipedians that know something about this party, and I think using the logo (or something similar) is simply better stylistically than using a photo of e.g. the PM. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that no appropriate tag exists for material such as this. Fair use is a uniquely US concept but in Denmark and several other nations, the solution normally chosen is to allow others the use of an image but not the modification of it. It could be considered an extension of the idea of promotional images. The other solution normally used is "released to the press" which means that the image can be used without payment (but modification is in this case considered somewhat impolite). All in all, I don't think the US concept of "Fair use" is particularly accurate for material such as this. The only reason I tagged it as a "logo" is that it was the best solution I could think of in 5 seconds. I'm not going to die because it'll no longer be on my userpage, and I'll replace it with a portrait (however I do have every legal right to use the image under both party laws and Danish law.) However, I'm restoring the link to my sandbox. My sandbox is used as a collection of links to images I've uploaded and I'm pretty anxious to make sure none of them suddenly "turn red". I have around 350 pages on my watchlist, and I don't track this one all the time. I'm cannot see any legal problems at all in keeping a list of links, as is the case here - especially since the image is not displayed. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I checked the page again and I'd completely forgot all about the template code (which was just old code waiting to be trashed anyway.) However, I'm keeping the list of links, and I can see no problems at all in this. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Take Me Higher

I noticed you contacted Take Me Higher. He doesn't use that account, he now uses the account known as User:Bull-Doser. Just wanted to let you know. Karrmann 13:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Republicanlogo.png

I did NOT upload that image. I did a revert when it was once vandalized. That image was used before Wikipedia added support for SVG images. Andros 1337 14:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I also did not upload this image. I png crushed it... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Amoriumkroki.jpg

I think it will be better to remove it. I uploaded it from www.amoriumexcavations.org, and there is an "all rights reserved" tag on the home page. As far as I can remember, it was not there before, unless I had not noticed it, and I had uploaded it both there in Amorium page and in the Turkish wikipedia. In any case, at the present state, it will be better to remove it. Regards. Cretanforever

Addendum: I sent an e-mail to the Head of Excavation in Amorium. If I receive a response, we can act accordingly. I had done the same in the past for this one here [1] as well, and received a written consent. Regards. Cretanforever

Re: Speedy deletion

I'm sorry. --Valepert 10:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Permission from license selector

Hello, Stifle. I see that you are the creator of Template:Permission from license selector, which is now being placed on all image uploads for which the uploader chooses "I have permission to use this image". I think this wording needs to be changed: "I have permission to use this image only on Wikipedia" or "I have permission to use this image for non-commercial purposes only" or something. After all, if I find an image licensed under the GFDL somewhere, and I want to upload it to Wikipedia, then I do have permission to use the image—permission under the terms of the GFDL license. The presence of the "I have permission" option at the very top of the list, worded so broadly, makes me fear that many newcomers will choose it even if they meant that the image is available under a free license. Perhaps your user talk page isn't the right place to bring this up, but I didn't know where else to say it. —Bkell (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The best place is MediaWiki talk:Licenses, and I'll start a discussion there and précis your message and concern. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fritz Klein image

I don't know how I managed to mess this one up (I've added images successfully before). When I added it, I got the warning message (fair use, etc.) even though I thought I had tagged the image correctly for use here. The weirdest part was that I could not find the submitted image again. I couldn't find it associated with its article or elsewhere. I'm sure I screwed something up.

If I still have it and it's OK to try to add it again (it seems to fit the fair use guidelines: it was taken from an obituary from one of the local news agencies -- which I thought I'd indicated, lol), I'd be happy to do so. If it's OK to "add" it again and it's still on the site, would you let me know how to find/access it? Thank you. Richard G. Shewmaker 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

fair use images

Hi Bkell...I am aware that displaying fair use images on user pages violates an obscure Wikipedia policy. I do agree with that policy to some extent. But given that I am not a well-known member of the community, nor do I carry any considerable authority or reputation...I do not believe that fair use images on my user page will significantly undermine Wikipedia. Consequently, I intend to restore my user page when you aren't looking. If I can get away with this, then it only demonstrates my point that no one would notice if fair use images were displayed on my userpage. I mean no offense to you, of course. I understand that you are simply executing policy. 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Logos in Template:Danish parliamentary election, 2005

Even if it would be allowed to use FU images in templates, the use is purely decorative and as such violates #8 of Wikipedia's fair use policy (see WP:FU#Policy), so you were absolutely right in removing them, in my opinion. You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, but I doubt many people would come to a different conclusion... --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

I found two pictures on this website and it credits the photos taken by the libary of congress so does that mean that use the {{PD-USGov-Congress tag? Storm05 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I would guess that the Library of Congress is merely where the image was found, and that the actual photographer is the copyright holder, because I don't think the Library of Congress creates very many works, it just collects them. On the other hand, maybe it is possible that the copyright has been given or sold to the Library of Congress. You should ask for advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —Bkell (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image HoneyBears question

What is the proper rationale I should give to an image that tells it is fair use. Everything I have read about it seems confusing? --Happyman22 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Thank you for your suggestions, I will do as you suggest from now on. :) With regards to [[Image:BBCNews06c-1-.jpeg, this was not uploaded by C.byron and so I have deleted your message regarding said image from their user talk page. I hope you do not mind. I will send a message to the actual uploader of the image now. Thank you for your help again. Wikiwoohoo 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

JPEG → SVG process

I understand your point, but in the specific cases, I’m still not convinced keeping the original images is necessary, for the following reasons:

• The information (i. e. non-noise) in the specific images is discrete, which means that, assuming I got all the relevant details, primarily the names and shapes, right, the images are almost equivalent with respect to their content.
• The licence matters are mostly trivial. All the images I nominated on July 29 were created by the uploaders and released under free licences or in the public domain. Afaict, mentioning the uploader’s name and choosing the correct licence has been the maximum necessary information. This could, of course, be expanded to include all information from the description pages of the JPEG images (of which there is not much), but the actual images do not seem relevant for the matter.
• There is no general way to track changes from a raster image to a vector image in the style of a revision history of that I know, and I’ve been making an effort to make reasonably precise traces, so there should be very few important changes.
• I hope there is no scenario under which it would be useful to include the JPEG versions anywhere. Any corrections, enhancements etc. should, presumably, be added to the SVG versions. Thus, the JPEG files themselves would never be used.

I’m not sure what other ‘evidence’ would be needed about the creator of the image; can you explain further? —xyzzy_n 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If somebody can make a case that an image is not actually under the GFDL, wouldn’t the problem usually extend to the JPEG version (the information for which is exactly as verifiable as for the SVG version, i. e. not at all, in most cases) as well? Besides, I remember reading something about image undeletion being now possible. Doesn’t that leave a means of getting back to the original image in such an event? The same would go for merging the image histories once that becomes possible. —xyzzy_n 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So it is basically a matter of {{*-self}} tags being more trustworthy than the rest? I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the explanation. By the way, you might want to edit {{ShouldBeSVG}} accordingly. —xyzzy_n 00:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Link Gaetz and Hot Nasties Pictures

---

I took the Link Gaetz picture. The name you see there is mine. So I am the sole owner of the copyright to this picture and I have NO PROBLEM having it put on Wikipedia. As for the Hot Nasties picture, I took a picture of my old Hot Nasties poster and here it is. For the two other pictures, do as you wish, I don't care. Terveetkadet 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gammage1.jpg

I notice you tagged this image for speedy deletion, as redundant. However, you said that it had been replaced by Image:Gammage1.jpg, which is the same image. As an image can obviously not be redundant to itself, I have removed the speedy tag. Stifle (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Derby County Badge

You probably don't know this, but people in the UK take great pride in their football club, now I am no longer proud of the user box because you have spoilt it - there is no copywright on football club badges! --Footballexpert 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So if I took this up with Derby County and emailed them, the decision could be reversed.

Feel Free To Delete The Image!

The Previous Image Was The Logo From The Offical Grudge Website But Some Idiot Uploaded A Fan Made Poster Over It! Im 110% For The Deletion Of The Image! Empty2005 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks!

Bumpiness

Any thoughts? Black Carrot 18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

HELP

HELP ME WITH THE TAGS Help me with the tagas because i cn prove that they are legal, and iam doing that

Sudan-Boundaries

hi Bkell ... please see your user talk page on Commons, cheers - Sven-steffen arndt 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me Bkell

Bkell can you help me to put the correct tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJRFMorelligu (talk • contribs)

Su-30

Thanks for putting a more appropriate tag on it. John Smith's 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of logo

Brian, I have appended the discussion page for the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FamilyAndWorkplaceConnectionLogo.png . Do you believe, at this time, that this is the type of "permission" information you (and others) would be looking for, in order to have a corporate logo remain unmolested? I don't know how much more permission we can cite -- we have the authorization of the public relations director of the organization in question!

By the way, any helpful insight you could give me would be appreciated, in terms of tagging images correctly so that they will not be deleted or questioned. In all cases of any corporate logo that this user name will be uploading, we will have the prior express permission of an employee of that organization to use the logo image. --MyWikiBiz 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The image "Su30 2.jpg" is of a single seat Su-27, not an Su-30. All Su-30s are two seaters.

Image:Penisphone.jpg

I uploaded this a long time ago and now that I look back on it, its a silly image that doesn't add much to an article which is prone to vandalism (I copyedited the article after having been drawn to IP vandalism there several times). Is there anything I can do to expedite its deletion, or should I just wait for the period to run itself. The image came for the Icelandic Phallological Museum website, if you prefer to keep the image, although I imagine its copyrighted but can't see what the fair use claim would be other than the generic ("there are no free images of the penis phone..."). Incidentally, the most common type of vandalism to this article is people adding themselves as either donors or employees. You recently removed links to some of these people, which is better than nothing, but really you should just revert their addition completely in the future, unless sourced. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Image:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg

Yes, I understand it survived a PUI and I don't care if the image actually survives or not either, but the license is still incorrect. A {{web-screenshot}} has to be a screenshot of a web page, and it can't be a screenshot cropped down to show a single image and not the whole page. I don't know what the correct license would be, unless someone can come up with a faire use rationale, but I've replaced the image on the SkyscraperPage article with an image of the site's logo, which I believe is more appropriate for the article than a watermarked image taken from the site. Thanks. Ytny 07:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So I read Image talk:Wiki top 10 built-50%.jpg and I have to say, I'm still a bit confused. I'm looking around and seeing how that image could be generated and this was as close as it got. I don't think it's a very good representation of SkyscraperPage (though a similar image might be good for the "diagrams" section) and it seems odd that a jscript-generated page would have a watermark over it. Ytny 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, sorry for not getting back to you sooner and thanks for adding the orphan tag. As I said before, I was a little confused about the discussion. I guess if anyone objects, they'll speak up. Ytny 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please proceed to delete image

Please go ahead and delete the image: Aldemaro Romero and his hall orchestra 1.jpg. It is completely worthless: it is too dark and blurred, its copyright tag is awkward, it does no service at all to the Aldemaro Romero article --of which I am the creator--, and hardly depicts an orchestra. Thank you! --AVM 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

American Flag Image

Please go ahead and delete it. Thank You--Gnosis 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Álvarez Castelló

Why did you delete the gallery? Jessesamuel 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

trireme

you removed the wrong picture. the olympias is currently the most important and well-known trireme in the world. remove anything but the olympias. Wandalstouring 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I check the copyright of the photos of the Orfeón Lamas

This images are part of the collection of the Vicente Emilio Sojo Foundation, they were published in a 1999 album of venezuelan aguinaldos of the XIX century, the publication of this images is legal, because are historic photos in Venezuela, promotional, and in the cd they don´t say the coypright status, i think they we can publish this photos in Wikipedia.

Thanks

Caracas 2000.

Image:Jean-daniel lafond.JPG

You'd have to check with User:TO220740, who originally uploaded the photo — I only copied it to my hard drive and reuploaded it because of a problem with the filename, and have no idea where TO grabbed it from. Unfortunately, though, TO hasn't logged on since December. Bearcat 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hello bkell

how i can put a good source to that images that, Morelligu upload, i´m now checking the source of that photos, we can talk about that.

Why the image of Lorenzo Herrera is not valid

We have to talk about the source of that image, the user of GJRFMORELLIgu, say that, this photo was of a Caracas album, but i found it, and with that source i can prove the legally of that photo.

Mr Bkell i´m not that user Morelligu

Mr Bkell, i´m not that user Morelligu, i new in this of wikipedia, and i watch that are many articles about Venezuela, when i check then i see that they are going to be delete, i´m tryng to solve that, but don´t made that comparations, if you have something to say, say that to me.

Caracas 2000

Ok, thanks

Ok, i understand that some people do vandalism here in wikipedia, i was checking all that laws of vandalism and tags, i want to provide rhe source of the venezuelan related articles.

If i have a doubt, i ´m going to tell to you.

Ok

Caracas 2000Caracas 2000 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

William Nolde

I'm unsure about the procedure regarding placing this image

http://www.thestrelz.com/nolde.jpg

In my article william nolde. I would appreciate it if you could leave a little message because I'm not such about the copyright and so on.

Many thanks --SGGH 12:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bkell

I upload this image, Image:Image-Feb, 8, 1960.jpg, can you check if i put a good source to it.

Caracas 2000

Caracas 2000 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

What's the template to warn users that images they have uploaded have been tagged as orphaned fair use? TIA, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know - I meant to notify the uploader that the image has been tagged. However, I've now discovered that it's {{subst:orphaned|Image:imagename.ext}}. Thanks anyway, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup - if only I looked a bit harder, perhaps I'd see a bit more... --David Mestel^(Talk) 20:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hawker Tomtit photo

I had some difficulty tracing the copyright holder of photographs originated by Hawker Aircraft Ltd in the period 1920-52. I finally the found & contacted BAE Systems (the present copyright holder) and was initially refused the right to use them. However, I tried further and got their agreement providing I used low definition & supplied them with copies of the file to be used for Wiki. I am an ex-Hawker apprentice (1943-8) and was in their design office as a stressman from 1948-52. Unfortunately, my own photos are even poorer in quality. I have been enlarging the stubs of the earlier Hawker aircraft, but cannot find suitable photos for many. Sorry for the quality, but it is better than no photo!

DonJay 15 August 2006

Fair Use

I have read the fair use article, but don't get the point! Please could you explain why this system is in place, it seems a waste of time as the images are GFDL. Segafreak2 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK

Ok,

Caracas 2000

Hello Bkell

I upload this image, Image:Doña Bárbara original cover.jpg, can you check if i put a good source to it.

Caracas 2000

Caracas 2000 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. —Bkell (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Orfeon Lamas photos

I buy the cd of Aguinaldos Tradicionales, in that cd are that images, and they don´t say the source, they only say that, the pictures of the cd are part of the archive of the Vicente Emilio Sojo Foundation, and that they published them in many albums.

What tag or source can i put to the photos of the Orfeon Lamas

What tag or source can i put, for the images of the orfeon lamas.

That is the only information that they say in the cd.

Caracas 2000 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the plan is illustrate the article

I think that the user that put the image plan to illustrate the article because these are the photos of this group.

Caracas 2000 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok

Can you remove the unfree image tag

Caracas 2000 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the image

Check that images of the Orfeon, i put another tag and a fair use rationale Caracas 2000 02:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What other things can i put

What other things can i put to the fair use of the images

Caracas 2000 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all this, and i want to solve the tags of other important images that i check.

Thanks for all

$PЯINGεrαgђ unveils the new page...

See my user page for the change! —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't talked to you since I changed my name, try User:CliffHarris first. ;)

Hawker Tomtit Photo

Hi Barry - I found another publication with the same photo, which I have rescanned. It's a little better in quality. The first scan was taken from a Hawker advert & I was unable to get a better photo even using the tools of my graphic program (Paint Shop Pro). If you can find a different one, please lrt me know. Thanks for your help.

Don Joseph

i have added the source

i have added the source to the image Image:Samra Airblue.jpg pl added to the description as well.thanksYousaf465

BadJPEG tag on Image:Gulf.jpg

Hello, Rfc1394. I see you removed the {{badJPEG}} tag on Image:Gulf.jpg, saying that the JPEG is 4K, but when converted to PNG it becomes 24K. I have restored the {{badJPEG}} tag on this image. I have no doubt that converting this JPEG directly to a PNG increases the file size dramatically; that's because the JPEG image suffers from compression artifacts, and saving all of these compression artifacts in a PNG requires a large file. To replace this JPEG with a PNG, someone will need to clean up all the compression artifacts first in a graphics editor, or find a non-JPEG version (such as a GIF) and convert that to a PNG. Please see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload for more information. —Bkell (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did exactly that. I did not directly convert to PNG; I converted it to a different, non-compressed format, then saved as PNG. I recreated the image in a non-compressed format that stores the image as-is without compression artifacts, exited the editor, loaded the new image in and saved it as PNG. It is still 6 times as large as a PNG image as it is as a JPEG. I tried again, with the compression artifact-free image using The Gimp at maximum compression for PNG, and it's still 20K. In short, there is no way to get this image to be less than quadruple the size of a jpeg as a PNG. I have therefore again removed the 'badjpeg' tag because it is misleading, the PNG format would be worse. If you're going to make claims such as that a jpeg file is worse than a png file, I think it would make more sense to verify your claims - as I have done - before you make them. It is unreasonable to just blatantly make unverified claims when others actual experience dictates otherwise. It's also unreasonable to force people on dial-up lines to have to take more than six times as long to load an image simply over some theory that is totally wrong. If my tone is a little harsh, please note I'm not happy that you just blithely presumed something, then come along and make unwarranted changes without even asking me about it. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bkell

Bkell, i put the tag of fair use to the images of this articles:

• Ignacio Figueredo

• Lorenzo Herrera

Because, there are only a few of photos of this venezuelan singers.

201.208.126.185 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

ok

this photo are of fair use because they are rarely, like that one of the indio figueredo and the photo of lorenzo herrera.

Caracas 2000 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me with this image

With the image of Image:The Parranda of San Pedro.gif, because in the page where it is that photo, they say that all that information is copyleft

Caracas 2000 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)