User talk:Vette92

File source problem with File:Tylerthecreator.png

Thank you for uploading File:Tylerthecreator.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, one of the wiki-gnomes has gotten at the image. It looks like you took that picture yourself at the D.C. show (I was there too!), so you probably can just put the appropriate license on it and then it won't be deleted. I think one of the licenses here would probably be best. Chillllls (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he took the image himself, then where is the metadata? Why did he indicate that it's a screenshot? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both valid points. To me, it looks like the picture was taken with a smartphone and xhe just didn't put the correct license on it (a lot of editors, especially new editors, don't know how image licenses work). Notice how xhe didn't put a license on the image until the bot tagged it. If your assessment is correct and it's simply a screenshot of a Youtube video, then it should be speedied unless it is a screenshot of a video that xhe recorded (in which case xhe would be able to apply the correct applicable license). I'm trying not to be WP:BITEY here because this editor has less than 50 edits and this is the first image that xhe has ever uploaded. It is possible to help someone rather than tag something for speedy deletion and then challenge another editor's WP:AGF attempt to resolve the situation. Chillllls (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it is equally possible to presume that an editor tagging an image (uploaded by a newbie editor) for deletion isn't biting the newcomer. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't explicitly say that you were biting, but I guess you felt that it was implied. In that case, I apologize. I don't think it's biting to tag an image for speedy deletion, but your motives start to seem bitey when you challenge the advice that I give to make the image compliant with WP policies. While the image may appear to be copyvio to you, I actually attended the specific concert depicted in the image and believe that it's entirely plausible that the image was taken by a person in the crowd. If an editor wanted to insert an illustrative image into the article and had no regard for copyvio, they could do a google search on "Tyler the Creator" and use one of the hundreds of clearer/higher resolution non-free images that come up in the search. There's a complete disregard for Hanlon's Razor here. I understand that you feel strongly about keeping non-free content off of WP and I can respect that; judging by your userpage, it has provided you with a fair share of undeserved abuse. In any case, all of this back-and-forth is irrelevent unless Vette92 responds about the image (operating under the assumption that xhe even knows that we're discussing this on this talk page). Chillllls (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across countless scads of images where people have taken screenshots of things, and thinking that since they're computer 'took' the image, and they downloaded it to their computer, it transfers rights of the image from the copyright holder to them. It's a very, very common mistake. I don't see this as any different. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but as it is now the image is in violation of our policies. That's why I've made the statements I've made. I'm not attacking, not biting, not undermining, or any other pejorative term. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you're making. All I'm saying is that there's a possibility that this image isn't copyvio but rather added with an incorrect license and that operating on the assumption that this is deliberate copyvio doesn't change the possible outcomes of this situation. One of three things can happen here. If the license is not corrected (operating on the assumption that the image is not copyvio), the image is deleted. If the file is copyvio, the image is deleted. If Vette92 is the copyright holder, xhe can correct the license and the image stays. I was merely trying to point Vette92 in the right direction in the event that the last scenario is reality. According to your last sentence, you're now trying to frame this as if I'm accusing you of hurling attacks at the user. I'm not accusing you of attacking or biting or anything. I simply did not understand why my attempt to provide a helpful WP:AGF suggestion requires me to answer questions about the source of the image (seeing as how I didn't upload the file). If it is possible, I'd like the image to be brought in line with policy; in that way, the editor would learn how to correctly add images in the future. You know just as much about the source of the image as I do. I'm sorry to belabor this point, but the possibility exists that your presumption about the image may be incorrect. I have a feeling that Vette92 doesn't know that xhe has a talk page so this is getting increasingly ridiculous. Chillllls (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this caused so much confusion as I hadn't checked wiki for a couple days. The picture is a screenshot of a video taken at the concert so I wasn't sure what to put as the license. It is from this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ16rhnyH9E It is not my video and I didn't know if I was allowed to use it. I will delete if I need to. Vette92 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you are not the copyright holder of the video the image needs to be deleted. Chillllls (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Vette92 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, damn. I can't even figure out how to delete it. I'm useless.

I have deleted the image for you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redskins all day. I mean, thanks. Vette92 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]