Thank you for your comments and for wanting to use my picture. I appreciate that you ask me about it. No problem, feel free to upload it to the commons if you want to. Please just observe the Copyright. Philippe Baledent
As you deal with image sources license because you are "Against Fair Use Wikipedian" classificated, I hope you know how to treat these coincidence or at least maybe what to do or who to pass this affaire to:
Greetings from Galicia to your København mermaid, (NW Iberian Peninsula). --Sobreira 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, kindly assist me what to do concerning your comment,the issue is this article is about my father he is a very well known DOP in Egypt, so I wanted to inrich the article with some pics. I got this pic from a site is that ok? this is the link to that site: http://filfan.filbalad.com/movieprofile.asp?Position=4&GalleryID=1&PageNo=8&MovieID=2321
Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttelmissany (talk • contribs)
Just so you're aware, conflict of interest is NOT a speedy deletion reason. I did delete the article you had tagged as such as a non-notable biography. Please take a minute to read WP:CSD and understand the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks, Metros232 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not care at all if the image is deleted, my only edit to it was to remove what was a clear copyright violation from the image. However, your comment is a bit off the mark: PD-art is the template that references Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., it's not making the claim that the collage is art, but rather explaining that a website which merely mechanically reproduced a PD image can not effectively claim copyright over their reproduction... i.e. why the underlying images are public domain. Considering that Image:Juri_Gagarin_2.jpg has been deleted, it would appear if something is wrong with the claim, so I would agree that the image should by modified or deleted, but your comment on PD-art is off the mark. If I were someone interested in opposing the removal of the image, your commentary on PD art would have given me a great opportunity to argue with you. ;) --Gmaxwell 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
EPO: I have just learned that you deleted or removed the File:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png about a week ago for some reason.
That drawing came from a page on the website of the Sundyne Company, whom I presume were the originators of the drawing and therefore the copyright holders. I exchanged a series of emails with them asking for them to grant Wikipedia a GFDL license to use the drawing.
On January 29th, 2007, Mr. Tom Maceyka (the Business Manager of the Sundyne Company) sent me an email granting the GFDL license I had requested. On that same day, I uploaded the image and I also sent an email to Permissions@wikimedia.org to which I attached my exchange of emails with Mr. Tom Maceyka of Sundyne (including the one in which he granted the GFDL license). On February 15th, I received an email from Permissions@wikimedia.org thanking me for the information that I had sent them.
In view of the above information, I don't understand why you deleted the subject image. Would you please explain why? And also how can I get it re-instated as a valid image?
If you will give me your email address, I will send you all of the above emails with the Sundyne Company and also the emails with Permissions@wikimedia.org.
Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. My email address is mbeychok@cox.net and my user name is Mbeychok both here on Commons and on the English Wikipedia. - Mbeychok 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed you have uploaded some photos from Google Earth claiming own work. But unless you own the satellites who have taken the original photos you are not allowed to claim own work for your screenshots.
Therefore I am marking these as copyright violations. Please make sure you understand the copyright policies and laws. --|EPO| 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain the lack of source. It has a Public domain template specifying that it was taken by a USAF employee, which makes it public information. The image was grabbed from the AFPAM36-2241v1 PME Study guide http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afpam36-2241v1/afpam36-2241v1.pdf, a public document published in electronic and physical form by the USAF, and military branch of the United States Government. Since it is funded by tax dollars, all information not protected by security classification is public domain. Cfpresley 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello EPO
I've noticed that you have removed the image of the HKP forced labor camp from the article on Karl Plagge and also from the rlated article on the HKP camp itself (Image:HKP1944.jpg). This image is in the public domain and is widely used by museums, historians and is also found in my book "The Search for Major Plagge" published by Fordham University Press. I was wondering if you could explain why you removed it. I would ask that in your reply you take into account that I am not a veteran Wikipedian and am often quite confused by the terms used by discussions of edits. -Many Thanks, MichaelDG
Hi. You left a message on my talk page about an image that I loaded. I thought that fair use meant it was OK for me to do such a thing, which is why I put the fair use clause on the image page.
Please explain to me what I can do to fix this. I want to follow the rules.
Is the image too big? Because I can replace it with a smaller image.
Was I supposed to list the URL of where I got the image from? Because I can do that too.
I thought fair use meant that what I did was OK. I want to follow the rules. Please tell me what I need to do to solve this problem.
Thank you!Grundle2600 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bother, but would you mind deleting this image? It is PD-art and I've replaced it with a better resolution version, I've scanned myself. Only, a bot doesn't seem to like the idea. Cheers. Valentinian T / C 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
As you may know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).
In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.
The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
En lufthavn er i Goleniów en andre by ved Stettin og Police (Polen) (in engelsk Wikipedia: Police, Poland), nej i Police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.42.50 (talk • contribs)
to not try and create Fair use arguments for my pictures of American sculpture, being more or less content to have them be deleted. You probably want to go through the American section of the List of equestrian statues article and slash and burn away, after, of course, removing the rest of my work from the Gutzon Borglum article. I was interested to discover this note, "Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material will be blocked from further editing." and since I have posted dozens, perhaps hundreds of these images, . . ..... who knows? Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, EPO
I see you are disputing the authorship of the above image. I have no problem with this, but I feel you are approaching the problem in the wrong way: you are claiming that there is no source information (the text on the author's talk page insists that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content), while this is not the case. Perhaps there is a source/authorship disputed template that can be used instead (or created)? Regards, Anrie (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC).
What type of photo are you looking for? I may have one available in my personal files, or else be able to get one in short order. Frmatt (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true
. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false
in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
05:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)