User talk:Polly/Archive 4

LIT Crest

Can you please explain why you have tagged the LIT Crest for deletion?--Corcs999 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add a fair use rationale to it, but you can easily do so and then remove the tag. Polly (Parrot) 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I9 and G12 taggings of articles and images

Thanks for the excellent work in the flagging of various images and articles for deletion, but there's a slight problem, in my opinion anyway :) Could you possibly provide a link for the proposed deletion of a supposed copyright violation, it can help a great deal in verifying that it's unfit for Wikipedia and can be used as evidence when discussing the deletion to users. Thanks. Rudget . 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are obvious promo photos or taken from websites and uploaded under false free licenses or no licenses. The onus is on the uploader to prove otherwise. Polly (Parrot) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daigunder d.jpg

Hi, I have added Fair use rationale to Image:Daigunder d.jpg. Please tell if this rationale is acceptable. Thank You Vinodh.vinodh (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks about the same as numerous other rationales so should be OK. Polly (Parrot) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:70px-Brown triangle svg.jpg

Thanks for the message. I just tagged my photo upload. I apologize. The image is self-created in paint.net by me, approximately 10 minutes ago. ExRat (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

FYI, these images now have a Fair-Use rationale. They actually had one beforehand, and I'm not sure how you missed it. Same applies to Depictions of Muhammad. But everything's fine now.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They had a FUR for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy but not for the other two articles linked to the image. Polly (Parrot) 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a FUR for each article now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr gut. Polly (Parrot) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ousso Image

Hi! What's up?! I have recieved a warning that the image i uploaded could be deleted... actually, i cant see how its copywrited!! Its there on the internet free for anyone to download, isnt it?! :S:S Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image came from the BBC website so is likely copyrighted either to the BBC or being used by them with permission of the copyright holder, very few images on the internet are under free licenses, most are copyrighted. Polly (Parrot) 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

juninh8

i just want to know what is the official theme song for the WWE Backlash 2008 event thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juninho8 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, try You tube. Polly (Parrot) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameRanger

I would like to agree with your request for a speedy deletion of the GameRanger page. The constant vandalism by disgruntled users is more of a hassle than anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.140.158 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined, now sent to AfD. Polly (Parrot) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD - Image:Chuckrose.jpg

I noticed that you have nominated my uploaded photo of Charlie Rose for speedy deletion per WP:CSD, however, you did not follow the guidelines by notifying me on my talk page that my image was up for deletion. I will assume this was a simple mistake, however, I feel as though the fair-use rationale that I provided as per WP:RAT, was not treated seriously, or perhaps was looked over entirely. I have disputed this deletion, and I hope that you will take part in the resolution, as per WP:RAT: "Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible." Thank you for your time. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Twinkle should have left a message on your talk page. Yes I did read you FUR I just don't see the significance of the live broadcast screenshot. Polly (Parrot) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My FUR states that "The image's purpose is to show Rose's continued presence on his show after injury". Your stated reason that you "don't see the significance of the live broadcast screenshot" is in conflict with the reason you posted on the image page: "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information." If you still disagree, I'd appreciate it if you could be a little more specific and/or consistent with your failure reasoning. Perhaps you would be willing to suggest an alternative to deletion. Maybe some way for me to obtain a free image. Of course, leaving the image where it is is also perfectly reasonable. It is a significant event in and of itself. Thank you for hearing my case. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how getting a black eye is a crucial life moment requiring a special fair use image in this persons article. Polly (Parrot) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an argument over opinions. Could you suggest an alternative to deletion? --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a good case for the image if you show that his appearance on the show with the black eye caused much media speculation and comment, so the image is valid for critical commentary for that reason. Polly (Parrot) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salcombe church .jpg

I have added a no-copyright tag to image file. If OK, shall I amend caption on Salcombe Regis page? Ning-ning (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everything is now fine, amend away. Polly (Parrot) 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My picture

Poly, I would actually like to delete that picture I just uploaded, but I dont know how! I was just playing around, trying things out and trying to learn how to do a few things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwlord (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion at authors request. Polly (Parrot) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford College for Women logo

I use a text-to-speech reader and trying to wade through all of the information on fair-use rationale has been a nightmare for me. Is there a very brief explanation of what I need to do somewhere, or even a template? Beginning (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that...I copied the box that from the UConn logo page and changed the pertinent info. Do you think that would work? Thanks! Beginning (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That will work fine, you'll find the Fair Use Rationale templates here [1]. Polly (Parrot) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Polly! Friendly and helpful Wikipedia editors are always nice to encounter. :) Beginning (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, always happy to answer questions and to try to help. Polly (Parrot) 03:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Einsof.gif

I've just put up this image and received a message to say that it needs to be copyrighted. It's my own work which I'd like to be freely available to Wiki. It looks as though I did something wrong in the form-filling when I uploaded it. I've put a message on the help desk, but wondered if you could explain to me what I did wrong/need to do, please, as I still don't fully understand Wiki copyrighting articles. abafied (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add one of these free licenses [2] and remove my unlicensed tag at the same time and all is fixed. Polly (Parrot) 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; I'm more than a little daft about technicalities! abafied (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, finding the right page on Wikipedia usually ain't easy. Polly (Parrot) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jones

Hi, just so you know, I uploaded a Peter Jones screengrab nearly three years ago, in August 2005, when the rule was that anything tagged as film-screenshot from a film or TV show and used to show what an actor constituted fair use. The current version is *not* the one I added, but was just changed with an image from the BBC's website, which is a much tougher case to make. So I can't really add a rationale for the image as it stands, but my own recommendation would be to delete the current image, return to the older version, and I think the rationale there would be much simpler. -- Aleal (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually easier to provide a rationale for the new image as it's the actor out of character rather than the actor in character. Still as he died fairly recently fair use images are still somewhat dubious but probably OK. Polly (Parrot) 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, or else I'm misunderstanding the changed rationale rules (as I said, I added the image three years ago, when film screengrabs had their own rules). It shows his appearance at the time (it's not a make-up role, and is more recent compared to his death than a much earlier publicity shot), and use of DVD or TV screenshots for such purposes is a widely accepted practice and not generally problematic legally. Taking an image from a BBC obituary is a little trickier, since they copyright all material on their site. But it's your call. I'm not all that interested myself, just clarifying since you left the message to me. -- Aleal (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's from a screenshot or BBC website it's all copyrighted, though I doubt the BBC own that promo shot, most likely using it under license. Can't say I'm that bothered myself really, the rationale would work for either image. Just a shame there isn't a decent free one. Polly (Parrot) 20:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Image

Hi Polly!!! Waht i have to do, for delete the image of Dioh Williams, Louis Crayton, Jimmy Dixon? Alexutu (User talk:Alexutu) 3:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing they should get deleted as copyright infringements. You have to remember that all images on the internet and elsewhere are assumed to be copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise, and even then you have to be cautious. You can't claim copyright of an image you found on the internet just because you uploaded it to Wikipedia. Polly (Parrot) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting admin actions

Please do not revert admin action as you did here. This image can be still used as fair use if the image is about a fictional character. There is no need to rush with i9 deletions. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert my correct actions, the image clearly falls into CSDI9 and whether or not it can be made a case for fair use is neither here nor there. Polly (Parrot) 02:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you intend to make the fair use case? If so please do, but do not revert correct actions, that is an abuse of Rollback. Polly (Parrot) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is WP:BITE. You need to wait users to fix they mistakes, many user does not understand non free content, rushing with i9 does not help them. I will not warn you again, please do not revert it. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No this is not BITE this is policy, please do not threaten or I will take further action. The onus is on the uploader to provide licensing and rationale, If you spent as long as I do on the upload log you might know better. Polly (Parrot) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you disagree with policy then attempt to change it, but do not threaten those trying to implement it. Polly (Parrot) 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A policy which allows 1 week to users to fix their mistakes. Yes it is WP:BITE and I hope not see you doing it again. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in CSDI9 does it give users 1 week? That image was clearly correctly tagged by me, I think you should read policy again as you are incorrect. Polly (Parrot) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC). I think you're getting I6 and I9 confused, I6 gives 1 week I9 does not.Polly (Parrot) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BITE is a guideline, CSD is Policy. Policy trumps guidelines. If you look at my talk page you'll see I'm only too willing to help new users if they ask. Polly (Parrot) 03:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off this image was uploaded without license, it was not uploaded under a free license so there is no blatant copyvio here. Second, if user uploaded trying to use image under fair use, but failed to provide license and rationale, the image must be tagged with di-tags to allow him/her to fix the problem. Third tagging a non-blatant copyvio with unknown permission or license to be immediately deleted after 2 hours is biting. For your information, IrishBabe12121 (talk · contribs) edited Louise Summers and obviously was trying to upload a image of fictional character, it is totally allowed to give 1 week to newcomers to fix their mistake. You are wrong and I hope not to see you biting or reverting admins actions again. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on what is or isn't a copyright infringement. In my opinion any commercial image uploaded without licensing or rationale is a copyright infringement. In this case the more so as the name of the website the image came from is written on the image,so most likely it's a derivative image of a derivative image, try providing a valid Fair Use rationale for that. Polly (Parrot) 03:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, any photographer can join to Wikipedia and upload his/her own commercial/copyrighted image without licensing trying to use under a free license for Wikipedia and there is still no blatant copyvio, that is why we use di-. But due to knowledge, they often does not license image or license it incorrectly. Even if image has a name of website, it can be cropped and diminished to adequate to non free content policy. So leave it to the user. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images weren't the uploaders though, sure if it's your own images then fine. But these weren't self created screenshots, they were someones else's screenshots on a website. But to be frank the main reason I reverted your initial reversion was the fact you used rollback to remove the tag, rollback should only be used for vandalism. Your use of it in this situatuion was rather rude, inappropriate and poorly judged. Polly (Parrot) 20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images used under fair use on any website are allowed to be used on Wikipedia if they meet with WP:NFC, again there is no blatant copyvio and you still do not understand it. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I reverted you and provided my rationale on your talk page explaining why I declined. But instead to wait uploader to fix image information or even wait until 26 March 2008, you become confrontational readd i9 again. For your information Wikipedia:Rollback feature is not a policy or guideline, I reverted you because I was declining not removing vandalism, but you seems not to understand it. I hope not see you disrupting and biting as you did on this image again, you was warned. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You only provided an explanation after I re-added the tag, you should have used undo to remove my tag and given an explanation in the edit summary, you didn't do this. If you consider disruption to be re-adding a CSD tag the once, then you really are misguided and ought not to be an admin. Polly (Parrot) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Why thank you. Polly (Parrot) 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Grant

Not to canvass, but I'd like to call your attention back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Grant, a page you nominated for deletion. The article has gone through a major revision, and I invite you to take a second look at it, and your !vote -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's all over now, but seems like a sensible outcome. Polly (Parrot) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GGC seal

Hey there,

Thanks for the message regarding the image I uploaded for Georgia Gwinnett College.

You can delete that off Wikipedia, since I made the correct changes on the PNG file now used on the GGC page.

Thanks

TI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisenberg (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a redundant image. Polly (Parrot) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Images

How would you even know my images are copyrighted? Maybe I had those pictures and decided to scan on my computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they came from various websites, it was rather obvious. Polly (Parrot) 01:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I have those images. The King Gemini (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:Golghar patna.jpg

Hello, just so you know, I've removed the CSD tag from that image as I can't find the image on the site you provided, nor can I find a duplicate on Google or the other site that user's been uploading from. Can you get a more specific link to where you found the image? Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right that image is different, though it's clearly taken from a website finding which one exactly is like looking for a needle in a haystack. This is the closest I got [3]. Polly (Parrot) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry dude I don't know that soo than what do I need to choose there? what license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianivka (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as they're images of existing buildings and locations only free licensed images will be acceptable really. So if you live nearby why not take some pics yourself and upload them, the only other place you might find free images is on Flickr, but make sure they are licensed under Creative Commons. Polly (Parrot) 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright tag

Hi, thanks for letting me know I didn't add a copyright to my mayfly picture. I'm sorry, but I can't figure out how to do it???? Do I upload it again, this time with the copyright?? Thanks for your help!! Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt edmonds (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that just add one of these tags Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Free_licenses and remove the no license tag and that's it.Polly (Parrot) 15:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

I don't know how to add a tag.

I'll add a free license for you, just let me know if it's acceptable. Polly (Parrot) 16:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just added the same license you had on another image, just add it to any more that are lacking licensing. Polly (Parrot) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]