User talk:Polly/Archive 5

Jerome Mathis image

Did you not read it. I wrote why it's used under fair use. What more do you want? Cra sh U nderride 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Mathis image

Did you not read it. I wrote why it's used under fair use. What more do you want? Cra sh U nderride 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non-free images on BLP's are not really acceptable according to the non-free content policy. Polly (Parrot) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non free? It says that I can use it! I just have to give a credit too Scout.com for it. I did that. It's legal. It should stay. Cra sh U nderride 00:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not under a free license it's copyrighted as you have said in the infobox, so only fair use is allowed which makes it non-free. Polly (Parrot) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's bein' used under fair use. What's wrong with it? Cra sh U nderride 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are a living person a fair use image is only used in exceptional circumstances as it's reasonable to suppose a free image will become availiable. Polly (Parrot) 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the image description page. I tagged it. Cra sh U nderride 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the summary I see it's for non-commercial only which is not compliant with Wikipedia content licensing. Any image on the internet can be used for fair use, it's just that Wikipedia have a stricter non-free policy and limit fair use accordingly. This image just doesn't meet those criteria. Polly (Parrot) 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. YOU Google him four or five times and find ONE that can be used in occordince with Wikipedias Holier than thou policy. Cra sh U nderride 01:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly try, but only an image under a free license will really do. I can appreciate and sympathise with your frustration in this matter. Polly (Parrot) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he's one of my favorite players and it's really p*ssin' me off! lol :D Cra sh U nderride

I gave Flickr a try but found nothing, couldn't find anything else but copyrighted images. I can only suggest you try contacting one of the copyright holders of an image and asking if they'll release it under a free license, though I wouldn't hold out much hope of that. Finding free images of well known people can be tough, just look at all the BLP's without pics. Polly (Parrot) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:wk1.gif

I've re-loaded this image to Wiki Commons, with an explanation of the gif and the photo and put it on the page for Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi. Can you check it for copyright/accuracy of origins, please, and/or tell me what I should do if I've done it wrong a second time (which, of course, is more than possible!). abafied (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons don't accept non-free images, do you mean Wikipedia? As the man concerned is still alive it might be challenged for fair use, but I won't do so as I imagine acquiring a free license image may prove very difficult. Polly (Parrot) 19:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Polly, I'm beginning to think that I've no idea what I mean, being still as thick as bricks about Wiki's copyright policies/procedures and U.S. copyright law! But many thanks for your next comment. I followed enric's advice that he put on my user page, so I hope I've done enough on the image page not to get into a tangle/have it challenged again. abafied (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is easy to justify, but Wikipedia's Non-free content is a lot tougher, especially for BLP articles. Polly (Parrot) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm beginning to understand! Still, many thanks for your help. abafied (talk)

I've another request on the einsof gif you advised me needed the copyright checked. I asked for it to be deleted and I've redrawn it with English titles instead of Hebrew and renamed it einsof1. It's now on Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi's page and I've let enric know so that he can check the licensing, too. Is it OK, now, do you think? abafied (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine to me. Polly (Parrot) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. abafied (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navenby

I have just been taking the borders off some pictures on the Navenby article - as suggested in a recent peer review. Yet, just as I re-upload them, you are calling for a speedy delete of them all - even though they all have written permission for use! Help!! --Seahamlass (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed read the comment on the Flickr page, the copyright holder specifically stated that the images weren't for commercial use, this is incompatible with Wikipedia policy. Unless you can get them to release the images under a free license, Creative Commons or GNU etc. They'd need to add the relevant tags to the images on Flickr otherwise you've got conflicting copyright information. Polly (Parrot) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But most of them are NOT from Flickr anyway - so why have uou tagged them? And why now? They have been on Wikipeedia for months? --Seahamlass (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just noticed them as they were re-uploded, If you have a release from the copyright holder under a free license and the image isn't on Flickr to confirm this, then you really need to email proof to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", Take a look here for clarification [1] Polly (Parrot) 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well I guess I'll have to do that now. Thanks a bundle by the way, trying to get an article through GA is hard enough without having to deal with this! Cheers, cheers, CHEERS!!--Seahamlass (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or later this would have been an issue, best to get it all sorted now rather than later. I wish you well in your GA endeavours. Polly (Parrot) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement for there to an available online statement of copyright licensing. As such, the Ray Beckham photographs are perfectly fine, providing that it is true that he explicitly released the photos under the CC-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license. Since the author clearly has no intention of commercial gain from the photos (he suggests a charity donation on his website), I have no reason to suppose otherwise. However, the flickr photos are also marked with a mix of CC licenses and these are clearly not explicitly granted. So let's make it clear that's what is needed for each photo is a clear statement of the licensing status of the photo which is true and compatible with Wikipedia policy. If Beckham didn't grant a CC license, maybe you could ask if he would, or else simply copy his statement of permission onto the page which would also be fine. As for the flickr photos, I've posted a comment requesting a more appropriate license, so let's hope that goes somewhere. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine just so long as it is a free license that places no restrictions on commercial use, he should realise that others may use his images for commercial gain under such a free license. Ideally they would all be easily verified via a Flickr link, if not then an email to the wikimedia foundation would be best. Polly (Parrot) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right,I have emailed all relevant documentation to Wikipedia re Ray Beckham pictures, and emailed Brian the photogra[her who took the other three that you have disputed. I have also placed hang-ons onto each photo you want to speedily delete and it has only taken me three hours. What a waste of time. Just to prove I have done what I've said, as you don't seem to believe anything else I say or offer any support, here is a record of my recent contributions.

22:51, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbystation.jpg‎ (top)
22:50, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Take-away.jpg‎ (top)
22:50, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Eleanornavenby.jpg‎ (top)
22:49, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg‎ (top)
22:49, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (top)
22:48, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbypanor.png‎ (top)
22:47, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Navenbymeth.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission granted for use, just waiting for confirmation to be sent to Wikipedia.--Seahamlass (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)') (top)[reply]
22:46, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbymeth.jpg‎ (top)
22:46, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Stpeternav.jpg‎ (top)
22:45, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Lionnavenby.jpg‎ (top)
22:45, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Lionnavenby.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission granted for use, just waiting for confirmation to be sent to Wikipedia.')
22:45, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Lionnavenby.jpg‎ (top)
22:44, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Stpeternav.jpg‎ (←Created page with ' Permission granted for use, just waiting for confirmation to be sent to Wikipedia.')
22:43, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeternav.jpg‎ (top)
22:33, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Smithhouse.JPG‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:33, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Smithhouse.JPG‎ (top)
22:32, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Mrssmith1.JPG‎ (top)
22:32, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Mrssmith1.JPG‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:24, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbywitch.jpg‎ (top)
22:24, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Navenbywitch.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:06, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Navenbypanor.png‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:06, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbypanor.png‎
22:04, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎
22:04, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Clintlane.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:03, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbystation.jpg‎
22:03, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Navenbystation.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:02, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg‎
22:02, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Stpeterchnav.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:01, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Eleanornavenby.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:01, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Eleanornavenby.jpg‎
22:01, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Take-away.jpg‎ (←Created page with 'Permission to use this picture on Wikipedia has been sent to the OTRS.') (top)
22:00, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Take-away.jpg‎
21:55, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Lionnavenby.jpg‎
21:47, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Take-away.jpg‎
21:43, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Polly‎ (→Navenby)
21:40, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Eleanornavenby.jpg‎
21:39, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg‎
21:38, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbystation.jpg‎
21:38, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎
21:37, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Take-away.jpg‎
21:33, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Polly‎ (→Navenby)
20:55, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Polly‎ (→Navenby)
20:53, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Polly‎ (→Navenby: new section)
20:44, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Lionnavenby.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Lionnavenby.jpg")
20:42, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Lionnavenby.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Lionnavenby.jpg")
20:38, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeternav.jpg‎
20:38, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeternav.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Stpeternav.jpg")
20:30, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbymeth.jpg
20:25, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Take-away.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Take-away.jpg")
20:23, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Clintlane.jpg")
20:20, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Clintlane.jpg")
20:19, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbystation.jpg‎
20:18, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbystation.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Navenbystation.jpg")
20:16, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Clintlane.jpg")
20:14, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Clintlane.jpg")
20:13, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Clintlane.jpg")
20:12, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Clintlane.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Clintlane.jpg")
20:09, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbypanor.png‎
20:09, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Navenbypanor.png‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Navenbypanor.png")
20:05, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg‎
20:05, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg")
20:01, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Eleanornavenby.jpg‎
20:01, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Eleanornavenby.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Eleanornavenby.jpg")
19:57, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Erminenavenby.JPG‎ (top)
19:56, 24 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Erminenavenby.JPG‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Erminenavenby.JPG")

--Seahamlass (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up copyright problems is never a waste of time, copyright is a serious matter. What makes you think I don't believe what you say? I wished you well in your GA endeavours earlier and do so again. I hope things work out well regarding the free licenses and that you get to use the images in the article. Polly (Parrot) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Arnold (musician)

I swapped your A7 on this article and this one for a G3 because they appear to fall under "blatant, obvious hoaxes and misinformation". First of all, there are no hits whatsoever for Billy Arnold + various keywords (e.g. the album, label[s], singles, etc.). Also, the singles positions are 100% fabrications, and the album itself is a fabrication as well (very obvious horrible MSPaint job). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same search as you and also thought of tagging it thusly, your tagging is most likely the right choice. It's just that when in the past I've tagged articles as obvious hoaxes the deleting admin has usually chosen to delete under A7 for some reason or other, even when claims of importance were made, so not technically an A7. Oh well, "Such is life", as Ned Kelly may or may not have said upon imminent expiry. Polly (Parrot) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:K-dee.jpg

Please read the fair use template before nominating the media to speedy deletion. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he is no longer performing isn't really relevant. He is still alive so it's not unreasonable to suppose a free image will become availiable. Polly (Parrot) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with this later. Got to go. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FU: Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

"That reasonably can be replaced". Certainly, in this case, the image can't be reasonably replaced by a free one. The artist has been inactive for more than 10 years. You honestly think a free image can be created? I kindly ask you to remove the speedy deletion tag. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like he's become a recluse, he's still very much out and about, so yes I think a free image could well become availiable. When it comes to fair use images for living people I interpret the policy rather strictly, others are less strict. So I've added a link to this coversation to the image page, so that it can be viewed by the closing admin. Polly (Parrot) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now. You tagged it with a script seconds after the image was uploaded. I hope you don't expect me to believe you tagged the image because you "interpret" the policy in a more strict way. Since when you can choose how to understand certain guidelines and policies? I don't see how that makes any sence. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the image is irreplaceable as it would need to be in order to be acceptable on a BLP article. It all depends on how you interpret irreplacable. Polly (Parrot) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you interpret the word reasonably? This image can't be reasonably replaced. What you are telling about how a free image can be created... it is not reasonable. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's alive, he's still active on the music scene albeit not performing, he's young not likely to expire soon, though with gansta rappers you never know. So yes I think it reasonable that a free image will become availiable. Polly (Parrot) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He stopped being active in the music scene. If a free image, oddly, is created, I'm willing to take down the non-free one. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A free image almost always takes precedence over a non-free one on a BLP article. The trouble is once you start making exceptions for some BLP's it's the slippery slope effect and before you know it every BLP without an image will get a fair use image added. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, but currently it would be against policy and I can't see why this fairly mediocre gansta rapper should be an exception. Polly (Parrot) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added my 2 cents at Image talk:K-dee.jpg. Spellcast (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this discussion to the image talk page that'll probably be better. Polly (Parrot) 03:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

hello YOU SMELL!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04aeverington (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do indeed have olfactory capabilities. Polly (Parrot) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boring!!!!

There are NO good pictures in your photo gallery

here is what u should do get some of nude naked girls!!! and boys and sex pics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoboy21 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

DO IT!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoboy21 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing (Disappeared) Edit and Log?

Hi Polly,

I am new at this. In fact, you welcomed me a month ot so back.

Last night, actually earlly this morning, I made an edit to the talk page for the article on "Kell Factor." I remember clicking the Save Page buttom and then returning to the "discussion" page to vefify that the edit had been accomplished. The text of my discussion had a few loose ends, so I did a little more reseach, got tired, and went to sleep (I never recall signing out). This morning when I decided to continue, I went back to the article discussion page and my edit was gone. Then, when I checked the edit log, there was no record. I also attempted to check the other logs including the deletion log , but found no reference.

Do you have any idea of what might have happened?

BillinSanDiego (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very odd, offhand I can't think what might have happened. I just hope it doesn't happen again to you. If you're certain you saved it, then it is probably some random little glitch that happened to occur. I hope you don't have to go to too much trouble to readd it again. Polly (Parrot) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo

I'm writing/editing the page for the photo right now!! Please dont' delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzlehizzle (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries you've got a whole week to link the image, though if it's a BLP article fair use images might be unsuitable per the non-free content policy. Polly (Parrot) 19:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scheherazade.jpg fair use

Lots of people keep telling me that I need to put a fair use rationale for my Scheherazade picture and I don't know how to do that. Can either you do it, show me an example, or tell me how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobocrow (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you adding it to? Polly (Parrot) 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Scheherazade from the video game Soul Calibur IV. Hobocrow (talk)

Done. Polly (Parrot) 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status

I forgot how to add that info...

The picture in question is a picture I've taken of myself, so I am the copyright holder.

Necro-File (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could add {{PD-self}} or any relevant one of these [2]. Polly (Parrot) 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fogle

Thanks for adding the image, WP compliant images are hard to find, cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great image, but better than nothing. Flickr is a great help for images, though finding what you're looking for can take some doing. Polly (Parrot) 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never thought of looking on Flickr even though I use it for my own album ! Which Flickr licence type complies with Wikipedia ? Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just go to the advanced search page [3] and tick all the boxes in the Creative Commons section, then any image found in a search should be compliant with Wikipedia policy. Polly (Parrot) 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcm2008

Hi again, I remain partially interested in WP, but unfortunately I cannot do an edits without them being re written....on this occasion it is Kitchen Knife...In the Falkner Square page..as soon as I edited...KK is on my case. Why do these users seem to crave trouble? A reference to 'Canning' in Falkner Square Liverpool, i omitted due to the area not being an actual area, KK returned the article to original..I have opened up a discussion page over the article. And if KK wants to play games like some other editors then I will let them get on with it. The point is I genuinely wanted to enhance the article, any article, only I am being blocked because of the way these other editors work. Shame I have to battle with editors who have lost touch with reality...Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert you edit. I left you refernce to the edge of the City Center and readded Canning. I have provided some references on the talk page and reinserted Canning again. Liverpool City Council have documents which refer to Canning and provide a map giving the geography of the area.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least you both seem to be talking it out, I hope you can come to an agreement. Polly (Parrot) 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]