User talk:Rettetast/Archive 5

RE: Image:JamesSolomon.jpg[edit]

Please pardon my ignorance, but this was the first image I had ever uploaded to Wikipedia and, I must admit, I find the fair-use stipulations to be a bit confusing. You, however, seem to be an expert on the subject (and the person who deleted the image!). Could I be so bold as to ask how I would go about making or otherwise acquiring a free-use or proper fair-use image? I was under the impression that, since the photo in question came from a press release, that it was usable under fair-use guidelines, but I was obviously mistaken.

Thank you in advance for any information you can give me on this issue! Sidatio 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It a common mistake. Even if an image is from a press release it has to pass all of the Non-free content criteriasThe problem is here criteria one because the image is of a living person and free equivalent could be created. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Rette tast 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have a question, if I may: How would I go about creating a free image? Thank you for the help! :-) Sidatio 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take an image of the person and release it under a free license (such as GFDL), or get someone else to do the same. You could also ask someone who has already taken an image to release it under a free license (See [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission]). Rette tast 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see - simple enough, right? ;-) I've already written one of his business parters to see if we can get that rectified. I'm not flying out to California to take a picture of the guy. Thanks for all of your help! Sidatio 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but be sure to get it released under a free license and not just a "of course you can use it on wikipedia" license. It is important that wikipedia can be reused by others. Rette tast 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenniferbeals.jpg[edit]

Guess I can't fool you can I? You must have a *real* exciting life, going around tagging images all day.

Juppiter 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Rette tast 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that more formal action is needed at this point. This user has engaged in personal attacks before, and does not view blocks as any reason to stop his behavior. A three week block will have no effect. Further, for him to engage in vandalism when he knows better [1] is flatly unacceptable. --Durin 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I didn't notice the full history before i blocked. The user is contributing and I find it hard to block indefinitely, but it is probably something we have to do. What do you think. I wouldn't mind you changing the duration. Rette tast 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting an indef. Rather, perhaps an RfC or Community Sanction. RFAR is premature. --Durin 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to use time on this. I was not offended, but felt that the user in light of previous blocks needed a break from wikipedia. Rette tast 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

I dunno what you trying but this work is usualy done by bots, that's why we have bots. And I mean tagging images as orphaned. comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 04:03, 10

And there isn't any reason a Mk.I Human can't mark an image with {{subst:orfud}}. --Durin 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GunnerMcGrath.jpg[edit]

Hello, you recently deleted an image named GunnerMcGrath.jpg at the "Gunner McGrath" wikipedia page because I apparently did not choose quite the right licensing.. which, I might add, seems practically impossible! =) I've uploaded a few images and can never seem to figure out which one is the right one.

To clear it up, I am actually Gunner McGrath and the picture is of me, taken by a friend of mine, and in fact has been used nowhere except wikipedia and myspace. =) I'm going to upload another photo there, I'd appreciate if you'd help me pick the proper licensing in this situation. Thank you!

The image had a fair use tag and failed the first criterion of WP:NFCC. Get your friend to release the image under a free license, See examples here, and upload the image again. Ask, if you have any questions. Rette tast 10:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture removed pathivara1.jpg[edit]

The picture pathivara1.jpg has been snapped by me myself so there is no issue of violating any copyright as i want it to be copyleft or any CC license or such.. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabinraz (talk • contribs)

OK. just upload the image again and chooce a license from the menu. If you want me to undelete it. Just leave me a note and tell me what license you want under. Maybe CC-BY-SA. Rette tast 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three current images of the Frankie Stone article[edit]

Hello, Rettetast, I noticed, of course, that you tagged the Frankie Stone article as possibly containing excessive or improper use of copyrighted images and/or audio files.

If it would be better, which it seems, I'll remove the three images there that are from Elizabeth-Hendrickson.net and instead use images from Willowfriend.com for that article, which I've used for most fictional soap opera character articles that I've contributed to here at Wikipedia, as Willowfriend.com clearly has no problem with its visitors using its images.

The number of images for the Frankie Stone article is only four fair-use images, and from having seen some good and or featured articles here at Wikipedia of that number or a little higher of fair-use images, I don't feel that there are excessively-used images within the Frankie Stone article, even though, yes, there isn't much plot to the Frankie Stone article as it is now, or too much more context to span out the length more so in between the images. The use of images from Elizabeth-Hendrickson.net, however, could/can be seen as excessive, as in excessive use of copy-righted material, which is what I assume you meant. I hadn't checked the image-policy of Elizabeth-Hendrickson.net until now, mainly because one image from that website was used in another fictional character article here at Wikipedia and I assumed that it was fine to use images from that site, which caused me (lazily and wrongly) not to check its image-policy, which is right at the bottom of their site, though they address this matter as specifically the use of their content. Anyway, get back to me when you can on this. Flyer22 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no magical number for how many fair use images that you can use in an article. You should evaluate every image according to WP:NFCC and especially criteria 8. Are all the images really needed to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I agree that an image in the infobox to show the character looks like is appropriate. In my opinion the other images does not show anything more that you couldn't have in the text. Feel free to disagree with me though. You could get others opinion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Rette tast 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- From having watched some deletion debates and Good or Featured article nomination processes here at Wikipedia, it seemed that there was/is a limit (though not specified) to how many fair-use images can be within an article on Wikipedia. I would and will still see an editor say, "This article has too many fair-use images for Wikipedia's fair-use policy"...but, as to the topic of the Frankie Stone article, yes, I feel that all four images within that article significantly increase readers' understanding of that topic, such as Frankie being hit by Erica's car. The main image (the one within the Frankie character infobox, of course), Frankie being hit by Erica's car...and Frankie dead on the floor in her room are all images that improve that article's readability. Notice that I left out the one that shows Bianca and Frankie talking in Frankie's room, as that is the only one of the images within the Frankie Stone article that I see as not being too important as of adding to the article's readability. When it comes to the images of that article at this moment, I'm more concerned with removing the three images that are from Elizabeth-Hendrickson.net, since I didn't get permission as to their use, than I am about having any images within this article at the moment. I will soon either take out the images from that article that are from Elizabeth-Hendrickson.net or get permission from the owner or owners of that website to use them. But, yes, as stated before, to answer your question, I feel that three of the images within that article are definitely appropriately used. Thank you for all of your insight on this matter, Rettetast. Flyer22 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters which website you take the images from. The copyright holder is the production company when the images are from television series.You know this article best and if you mean that the images are needed I would settle with only taking away the one image image you don't see as vital too the article. Best regards. Rette tast 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rettetast, and, yeah, I know what you mean about the copyright holder. It's just that I would feel better about asking the owner or owners of Elizabeth-Hendrickson.net to use the images from there before using them, since the owner or owners of that website require that and took the time to cap all of those images placed on that website. And, again, thank you for agreeing that removing one of the images from the Frankie Stone article as it is now would be best. I'll get right to that -- the one that really doesn't add to the article as much as the other three do. It was great discussing with you. Flyer22 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect User[edit]

I believe you have me mistaken for someone else. You left a message on my Talk page showing that I had uploaded an image that did not meet fair use criteria. However, using this link you provided to show my image contributions shows no such image being uploaded by me. I generally take pains to ensure that when I do upload images (the three that are listed), I specify the correct licensing terms. Mhoskins 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the image in 2005, but it is not shown in Special:Contributions after it has bin deleted. You can see your upload log for deleted images here. Probably no big deal though. The image was a clear violation of WP:NFCC. Rette tast 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked on Wictionary[edit]

Alison, I'm wondering if you know anything about Wictionary. I was unrightfully blocked from it for abusing multiple accounts. Since they don't have unblock templates, how do I appeal for an unblock there? LOZ: OOT 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison? I have no idea about Wiktionary. Rette tast 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I first left this message at User talk:Alison. Forgot to delete her name. LOZ: OOT 07:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Haydon Burns[edit]

I work for the Library. I wrote the article. I uploaded the pictures. It is an image of a postcard created shortly after the building was completed for advertising purposes. I believe the licensing and the information I provided are accurate enough. Pejorative.majeure 09:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale[edit]

Regarding this message, what specifically was wrong with the rationale provided? You speedy'd the image as: an image with fair use tag but no fair use rationale. While {{publicity}} was replaced with {{Non-free promotional}}, I'm at a loss to see how you classified this as an I6. How is "official portrait of a head of state" not a rationale? Guettarda 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i did not detlete the image. I just tagged it because it had no rationale. Check the deletion log to find out who deleted it. Check the links in the message left on your talk page. The image had no rationale as explained on WP:FUR. Rette tast 05:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, misread the deletion log. Ok, to repeat the question - why did you TAG it? Do you really simply tag images because someone (or rather, a bot) blanked the page? I can't imagine that you have never heard of the page history function in Wikipedia...

Instead of being obtuse and combative, can you explain your rationale for tagging the image? Guettarda 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{publicity}}, which redirects to {{Non-free promotional}}, is not a rationale. It is just a copyright tag. Would you like me to undelete the image so that you can write a rationale for its use? Rette tast 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you can undelete the image yourself since you are an admin. Just undelete the image and provide a fair use rationale on the image description page as explained on WP:FURG. Sorry for the short answer yesterday. I also gave you a wrong link. (WP:FUR instead of WP:FURG) Rette tast 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I am just trying to figure out exactly what the rationale was...this isn't a time-sensitive issue, so I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Guettarda 12:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message & guidelines of what to include[edit]

Re: Your message below to Mcth 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC): In my opinion the link shoulf not be included per WP:EL. Please note that wikipedia is not a link farm. If you still mean that the link satisfies WP:EL I will not revert you again. Rettetast 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply: This link should be included and it satisfies the guidelines of what to include. StopAfib.org contains too much neutral and accurate material to include here along with copyrighted individual stories that are useful but cannot be included here. I will add it back to the relevant sites. Mcth 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Heinisface.jpg[edit]

Hi, you left me a message about the photo mentioned. I have replaced this image with a free image I found in Wikimedia Commons. Please delete Image:Heinisface.jpg and thank you for your concern. Wempain 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rette tast 15:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images on List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy[edit]

You've removed pretty much every image on List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. Your edit summary calls WP:NFCC, and while I've read that article, I'd like to ask that you interpret the reasoning for this (in plain english - while some of the images did not have a fair-use rational, others did). And no, I'm not being rude or snide, I'm curious as to the "why"? Yngvarr 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 8. We don't allow decorative uses of fair use images such as the images on this list was used. The images had no encyclopedic value. I do agree that the list looked better with the images, but they were only there for a decorative purpose and therefore fails WP:NFCC. Rette tast 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you so much for your help regarding 70.101.41.66. It was very much appreciated. AngelOfSadness talk 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy vandalfighting. Rette tast 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD AutoReason Updated[edit]

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 17:54, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Images on List of Hayate the Combat Butler characters[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering why you tagged List of Hayate the Combat Butler characters with a nonfree tag and even tried to delete all the images which was kindly undone by an anonymous person. The tag says "See the talk page for details" but you didn't leave any details. I asked in the talk page, but no one replied in weeks. I'm new to wikipedia writing/editing, I'll appreciate an explanation so I can fix the problem and remove the tag. Thanks. Toothpyx 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are all of those non-free images really needed? Rette tast 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post of Billy and Mandy above after I posted. Can the pictures be replaced by text? Maybe, but you can say that to every picture on wikipedia. Would the pictures help increase the reader's understanding? I've been to many list of characters pages and pictures do help my ability to locate and identify the characters. If it's illegal to put pictures on list of character pages for identification purposes, why isn't there a crackdown on these pages. From my wikipedia experience, I'll estimate around 70% of character pages have many pictures. I spent a lot of time mimicking these pages and for someone to come after a month and delete everything without an explanation is frustrating.

Image:Him Kerosene.jpg[edit]

It's good that you're patrolling for images in need of FU rationales, but this one had a rationale the whole time and you almost got it deleted by tagging it. I haven't been logged in for a while but fortunately I logged in in time to save it. I understand that it was a mistake but please be more careful the next time. Jake73 21:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry but it will probably happen again. It wouldn't have bin deleted though. An admin goes through the images and checks if they have rationales. Rette tast 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

robert garbowicz[edit]

why did you delete my bio? for robert garbowicz

The same reason three other admins has deleted it today. It fails WP:N and it was blatatnt advertising which are not allowed in wikipedia. And please don't write articles about yourself. Rette tast 06:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bulger[edit]

I re-added his death as it is notbale, and it was massive news. I must admit, I was going to revert "British boy" too, so I added some more info to it. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert. Thanks. I have welcomed the IP and removed my warning. Rette tast 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, we all make mistakes! Happy editing. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth external links cleanup[edit]

Per your template message, I have cleaned up the Bournemouth external links section by removing unnecessary or duplicate links and incorporating some (for example, the census statistics link) as inline citations where the data is relevant to particular text.

As this seems to address the issue I have removed the template. Your view on whether the links cleanup is adequate or needs further work would be welcome.

The entire article could also do with a copyedit but that is a separate issue. Euryalus 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! Rette tast 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

I really appreciate you fixing up The reflist! Good work! :) --SQL^{(Query Me!)} 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The list are still big but more manageable now. Rette tast 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request information on your deletion of the "Red Nightmare" image[edit]

Hello Rettetast,

I'm rather new to editing and would like your guidance of your reasons for the deletion of the image I provided for 'Red Nightmare' and your suggestions to have the image restore.

I obtained the image from www.peterbrown.tv with their permission to use the image in Wikipedia. As the show as made in 1957 orginally for the US Government I believe and they believe it is in the public domain.

Could you help please?

Thank you Foofbun 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Do you have the exact image name that the image had. I could not find any images in your upload log that was deleted, or any edits you have made that has bin deleted. I deleted a whole lot of images a few days ago that had no source, but that should be easy to fix if you know it. Rette tast 12:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. It was probably Image:Rednightmare.jpg uploaded by Waukegan. The image was deleted because it had no copyright tag. I see that you have uploaded it again. I looks fine now. Rette tast 12:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hint_promophoto.jpg[edit]

There were a handful of images that I'd uploaded long ago, without fair use rationale, and I asked for these to be deleted recently. Looks like I missed this one. Please feel free to go ahead and delete this image. Cheers, Gram123 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it already[edit]

Since you are not a bot, it would be hoped you could have read the part of my talk page where I announce how, like quite a few other people, I am sick and tired of image fair-use notices. Maybe the next guy will be smarter. Djdaedalus 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Network; House on Q Street; Rationale[edit]

Your note acknowledged, and a rationale has been added to the photograph. Eric O. Costello 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on User:SQL/Reflist, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work will go unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Toyah image[edit]

I guess I should have put "inuse" on the page. This image has been on the page, although lower down, for a while without complaint. I will provide a fair-use argument. Could you pls undelete it. --Rodhullandemu 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been on the page since July 2006 without complaint, and has a valid fair use argument already. --Rodhullandemu 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has not been deleted. I removed it from te article because it fails WP:NFCC criteria 1. Rette tast 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it needs a rationale for the other article it is used in. Rette tast 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only used in *this* article! --Rodhullandemu 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are talking about Image:brave.jpg which was the image I removed from the article? Rette tast 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was there but for a few minutes until I realised that I'd missed out part of the name. The full name of the image is "Toyah brave.jpg", which was a copy of the one further down the page, whence I was in process of moving it. Sorry for the misunderstanding but I'm not used to my changes being picked up in mid-edit! Result is about an hour's worth of editing has now been lost. --Rodhullandemu 14:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the image Image:Toyah brave.jpg Rodhullandemu is referring to. I got a message earlier saying it's replacable and will be deleted. Seeing as this image is not being used to illustrate the subject inside the infobox, I dont think that it is violating fair use policy. It's being used to identify a particular section of the article, i.e. a music video in the singers phase. If I tweak the FUR can I remove the tag?Gung adin ♦ 14:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. fix the rationale, but the image should not go to the infobox, and there should be a mentioning of the image in the article. Rette tast 14:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHYL Channel 96 Fabulous Fifty Part 1.jpg[edit]

Fair use was already documented with an older template...but I put one of the "official" looking rationales in an attempt to satisfy this newfound insatiable desire to tag thousands of images for deletion. --SamMichaels 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rette tast 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Webdreams.jpg[edit]

Hi, you tagged the image above for deletion for missing fair-use rationale. I added a rationale and removed the tag, but as it is the first time I've done something like this, I'd like to have your opinion on it. Thanks! -- dockingman^talk 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale looks great. Rette tast 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam Kekovich ad.JPG[edit]

Dear User:Rettetast, I will try to be sensible and nice about this, but... I am feeling quite upset that you have -- or, a 'bot' you control, which leaves your username as the responsible person, has -- slapped on the image Sam_Kekovich_ad.JPG a "di-no fair use rationale" saying that it "has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy" (emphasis from the tag!) with the comment "Image is missing fair use rationale and will be deleted in seven days if it is not added." I presume that you stand by those comments, even though the original upload included my hand-written words, "I believe this screenshot from http://www.mla.org.au is fair use for the purpose of social comment." Which part of my comment is insufficient for your purposes and that of Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Non-free? Perhaps you did not also see that I had a licensing tag "Non-free promotional" after the explanation? Or, should I be saying more than I did? In short, what have I done wrong, and how can I satisfy your requirement to fix it? With thanks, - Peter Ellis - Talk 05:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see that you have provided a rationale. That is great. Please review WP:NPA. Rette tast 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Ruttan[edit]

I was just trying to learn more about Ruttan's aircraft that is capable of entering what we call outer space, and I am finding that the Wikipedia page (a site dedicated to education) has been deleted and vandalized, and you are listed at one of the persons to be blamed. Wikipedia is meant to be an open exchange of information, I love it, I am mostly just a reader. When I find information that I want is being filtered or just plain eliminated, but crazy weirdos like you, it really pisses me off.

I'll make my own determinations as to what I think is fact, and what is not. Eliminating a site on a particular issue is censorship. Are you some sort of Nazi? Do you want to prevent me from finding information? Do you think that you are my parent?

Seriously, weird guys like you, who have way too much time on your hands, are making Wikipedia less useful. If tat is your goal, than you truly are a horrible human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.19.253 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about. Please provide a link to the terrible mistake I must have done to get this response from you. Rette tast 09:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image for deletion[edit]

Regarding the image Image:WilTirion.jpg that you are so anxious to delete: I received permission via e-mail from Wil Tirion himself to download that picture from his website and post it in Wikipedia. Instead of just blindly deleting it, why don't you try to improve Wikipedia by dropping a line to Wil Tirion and asking his permission to use the picture? I'm sure he would grant permission again. ●DanMS • Talk 16:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majin Buu pictures[edit]

Hello. I have reverted your edit to Majin Buu that removed several images from the article. Now I know the fair use policy for non free content. I also know that such deletions are necesary when are images that can be replaced with fair use ones. There are no fair use images that can be used for this particular subject. You may also have a problem with the amount if images. Well actually the fact that not one picture exists that contains all of majin Buu's forms in one set exists and that fact that all of these forms are relevant to the character, I would say that they would deserve images right? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. These image does not fullfill this criteria. Rette tast 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course some the the images aren't truly important but a few of them would be useful to have or at least keep for when the plot summary for the article is complete. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. It would be great if you who know the article removes the unimportant ones, and add a fair use rationale for the remaining. Rette tast 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be understanding, I think that conversations such as these go much more smoothly when Civility is involved. I will do my best to weed out the non important images and try to provide some fair use rationale for the ones that need it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue Network" photo[edit]

Fair-use rationale has been added to the WISH-WJW matchbook photo, in response to your note. Eric O. Costello 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Record of Lodoss War characters[edit]

You removed the images without leaving a rationale, could you please elaborate on why. Thanks. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of a edit summary. I removed the images because they failed our criteria for inclusion of copyrighted material. See WP:NFCC, and specially #8 #2 and #3. Rette tast 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So on these grounds, would you say that not one image at all would be suitable within this article or type of article (list of characters, locations, etc. for a fictional series) unless the lack thereof would be detrimental to readers' understanding? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rette tast 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstea.jpg and fair use[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up about the image. I went ahead and added a half-dozen fair use reasons. If you have a minute, could you take a look at the image and see if the fair use criteria is sufficient? Is the image still going to be deleted, or do I have to do anything else? --The chuck 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine. Do you have a link to the image source? Rette tast 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's here. The link is located further down on the image page; should it be included in the fair use section? The chuck 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use review of Image:Xi Jinping.gif[edit]

You proposed a fair use review of Image:Xi Jinping.gif. Could you please ensure that my comment at Image talk:Xi Jinping.gif is included in the discussion, for the reason given? Seektruthfromfacts 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to the talk page. Rette tast 20:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the aarhus tip[edit]

However, I dont understand why wikipedia, the most used online encyclopedia, has such a bureaucractic license system. Even though I have permission by the copyright owners to upload the image here, its just not good enough. But thanks anyway. SenseOnes 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that we want to be the Free Encyclopedia. That means that we want others to be able to use all the content. Because of that all the content ha to be under a free license. Happy editing. Rette tast 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters[edit]

I've tagged the images with this:

Summary[edit]

{{Non-free use rationale |Article=List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters |Description=Image of section subject to be used in [[List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters]] |Source=screencap |Portion=single frame from tv program representing '''1/45,000''' of the complete work |Low_resolution=degraded from original capture |Purpose=primary means of visual identification of the subject |Replaceability=not replaceable by a free content image |other_information=Image has no practical use outside this context }} if you think there's going to be an issue, please let me know and I'll try to fix it once & for all. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian UN poster image[edit]

Check again. I only touched up the image (it was damaged). I think it's pre-1923. But somebody else found it before me. So do your research further please. --Ludvikus 11:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I it tagged because it was incorrectly tagged as non free. I have fixed the licensing now. It is not pre-1923 (UN founded after WWII) but it is PD because it was made by the us government. You could upload that image to commons. Rette tast 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]