User talk:Hindu-Boar

Image Licensing

You have added the {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} tag to many images such as here and here. I have reverted this. If there are good reasons why these images cannot be used on Wikipedia, please leave a note here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Bollywoodblog.com) does not allow their images to be used for commercial purposes. Check the source and then check the license provided on Wikipedia. The license on Wikipedia cannot be verified, there is something fishy about it and it caught my attention. You reported me to Administrators? Why? Did I do something wrong? Why did you revert my edits without first checking my claim? Seems to me like your upto to something.--Hindu-Boar 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images you tagged all have links to Wikimedia's OTRS system. For example, the license on Image:Aishwarya Rai.jpg says:

This image is owned by Caledonian Publishing Limited which operates the website http://www.bollywoodblog.com . All photographs used by this site are exclusively created by their own photographers based in Mumbai. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided. Correspondence to this effect is archived on Wikimedia's OTRS system here. To verify this, please contact a person with an account on the system.

Note: "please contact a person with an account on the system", not "please change the tags without discussion". I'm going to assume that the OTRS tags are accurate, if you believe differently, please do verify by contacting someone. Don't change the tags again, thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To save you the trouble, I contacted someone with OTRS access, and here is what they said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't change the tags. I only added the correct tag onto the existing tag. An image may have multiple tags if necessary. I'm sorry but I'm not convinced about what you have presented thus far. I don't see any other such license tags on Wiki as the one applied to the images in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog, and who allowed non-commercial images from Bollywoodblog.com? Who gave permission for their images to be used here in Wiki? Seems to me like you are only here to support User:Riana (the person who added the suspicious tags to all the images in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog.--Hindu-Boar 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think you are doing?????? I and several other trusted users and administrators have spoken to the director of Caledonian publishing where we have a written statement stating use for commerical purposes -this took some time and is verified leglly on the OTRS system . Do you think we are stupid? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra director of Caledonian publishing which owns the copywright of all images on the site (except film posters and screenshots of from films of course) confirmed it many times ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your're gonna have to learn that adminstrators are trusted on wikipedia for a reason ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By email it was confirmed that the site realises that by allowing wikipedia to use the images under 3.0 they are automatically giving consent for commerical use and distribution ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the tone of your writings, you sound like you are trying to threaten me. I have the rights to investigate the template you made. This template or license is the only kind I cam across, in which you claim the company gave you permission to use their images. I'm having hard time believing this and no, administrators can be anyone online. I don't have to trust administrators if I don't want to. Your trying to force me to trust you because you say you're an administrator. I want to hear what others have to say about this, not what you have to say, you can prepare your argument to those people. You don't know who I am, what if I am the owner of Bollywoodblog? How would you know if I am or not?--Hindu-Boar 10:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the owner of Bollywood blog was only too willing to help wikipedia and doesn't have the hang ups that you have. Fine I'll give you the email address ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn;t say I was an administrator - I have turned this down countless times as I prefer to contribute more to article content. I practically function as an admin but I don;t have the admin tools ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the license tag is going to be deleted eventually, even if someone claimed to be the owner of Bollywoodblog gave you permission thru an emial. Think logically, anyone can make up these things online and no body trusts things like that. If you really want to use all the images on Bollywoodblog, you have to make them change their license on their web page. Other than that I don't care much about this, but I'm sure many people will try to investigate the license tag.--Hindu-Boar 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed there is much online distrust. But I believe in this case it is genuine. I don't know why the tag would be deleted if administrators validated it and secured the coding. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why it has sparked so much attention with you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do your research on Caledonian Publishing you'll see the company is worth at least a $100 million and is not a company that would mess about ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]