_-_Front_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
Welcome
Please add new comments to the bottom of this page. Thanks. --Yamla 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Archive
2006
July
Dude, get off people's nuts about images. they're pretty and it's pretty easy to rationaize fair use if someone ever lawyers up and sues. FAIR USE, man. 24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Skittles Lover
Hi Yamla.I am not a sock puppet of whoever that other user was but anyway thank you for welecoming me to wikipedia. --Skittles Lover 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&action=edit# --24.124.95.2 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris Brown's whole biography is copyrighted
Yamla, Chris Brown's whole biograpy was copied and pasted from here. And if I'm not mistaken isn't that copyrighted material, and shouldn't it be removed? (Do It - To It 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC));
- This is clearly false. --Yamla 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problems
I'm real sorry for all the trouble i've caused. As you can see, I just recently started my edits on Wikipedia and I'm still learning. I've corrected the information on the images I've uploaded and i've also added {{db-author}} to certain images that already exist. By the way, I did not upload Image:Trishakrishnan2.jpg. It was uploaded by someone else. Sorry again. It won't happen again. Now, since i've done what you've asked me to do, please do unblock me. Xena4441 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- You should already be unblocked. Please let me know if this is not the case. --Yamla 16:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Xena4441 07:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
On Laura San Giacomo pictures
Hi! I need to understand something: you say that movie screenshots used to depict the actor rather than the character or movie do not qualify as fair use. Fine by me. Still, how come that the Nicole Kidman article has an image from the Hours? Or Tom Cruise article etc ? These pictures should be deleted as well, then. Otherwise, the Giacomo picture from The Stand should also be acceptable. By the way, do magazine covers qualify as fair use images (to be used to depict actors, that is)? I'm really confused with some of the copyright parametres. Xanthi22 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just because another article is doing the wrong thing does not grant permission for another article to also do the wrong thing. But let us take a look at the two articles. Nicole Kidman, four images. First one is licensed under the Creative Commons. The second, from the movie, The Hours, is used specifically to depict the movie. The article goes out of its way to note that she got an Academy Award for this movie. The image is being used to depict the movie. Next image, Creative Commons. Final image from a music video. Again, there's substantial discussion of this music video in the article. The image is being used to depict the music video. Now, on to Tom Cruise, six images. First is licensed under Creative Commons. The next one is from Top Gun. Note that there is, once again, substantial discussion of this movie in the article. As a result, it is fair-use. Next, a screenshot from War of the Worlds. Again, there's a whole paragraph of discussion about this movie and the image is illustrating the movie. Next image is licensed under Creative Commons. The next image is clearly a copyright violation as it stands. It is marked as such. The last is from Oprah. There's a whole section on Cruise's Oprah appearance. This is clearly fair use, though the image is marked as missing a rationale at the moment. Note that in none of these cases was a film screenshot used to depict the actor, only as a picture of the film under discussion. It's a somewhat subtle point. Also note that the leading image, typically used to present an image of the actor, should not be from a film. Because, as noted, the leading image (the first one on the page) is used to depict the actor, not the film. --Yamla 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- And no, magazine covers may be used to illustrate the particular issue of the magazine in question, not to depict the actor. However, take a look at Keira Knightley. There's substantial discussion of the particular issue of Vanity Fair (where Knightley appears) and so this qualifies as fair use; it is being used to depict magazine and only coincidentally the actor. --Yamla 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay
Ok, now I get it. You're right. Sorry for giving you a hard time. The difference is quite subtle but perfectly understandable.
Thanks! Xanthi22 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Yamla,
A new article regarding a Hindi movie to be directed by Farah Khan named Om Shanti Om(film) was recently created. The thing is, this movie has already been named Happy New Year!!! and the article for the film in question has already been created. Look here. The person who created the page for Om Shanti Om must have been looking at the incorrect information provided by the July edition of the Filmfare magazine. See here. I think the article for Om Shanti Om should be deleted or redirected. I leave this in your hands. Thank You. 60.48.223.50 10:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, i'm the user who created the page for the new movie. I did this based on the second link above [1]. The first link above is based from 2004, whilst the second one is from 2006, so that is more likely to be authentic. I would tend to leave the page as is till more information is obtained. - unni 15:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes
If removing a picture from an infobox, please take care to only delete the file name and caption, not the field for the file name and caption. --TheTruthiness 16:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
X-Americans (the ethnicity-American lists/categories)
Yamla, I'm just curious, where do you stand on the whole "labelling" as X-American thing? I've recently sourced a majority of these lists to include only people who have been described specifically as "X-American" (or "X" - if they are American) by reliable sources i.e. as opposed to "X grandmother", "X descent", etc. citing a part of the no original research policy, which states that we cannot combine A (i.e. a definition of X-American) with B (a statement that says Person 1 has an X grandmother) to create C (Person 1 is therefore X-American). Do you agree on this? It's been a major help in tightening up the pages and takes away the right of Wikipedians to decide who they think/do not thing should be on these lists, most of which borders on original research. There is currently also a discussion on this here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_deductive_reasoning_original_research.3F. Hope to here from you on this subject Mad Jack 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- What I am about to say is not Wikipedia policy. It is instead my opinion. Also note that I was born in England and have spent most of my life in Canada, though I am not yet a Canadian citizen. This may colour my opinion somewhat. Let's take the example of British-Canadian because it is one I am most familiar with. :) In my opinion, a person can be described as British-Canadian if they hold dual U.K. and Canadian citizenships. In this case, it wouldn't matter how the person describes themselves. A person may also be described as British-Canadian if they describe themselves this way and there's at least some basis to accept this. If I claimed to be British-Canadian, Wikipedia should generally accept this because I was born in England and because, although not a Canadian citizen, I have spent much more than half my life in Canada. (For the record, I do not generally describe myself this way). My little brother, born in Canada to British parents, could probably be described as British-Canadian if he describes himself this way. If he does not and assuming he holds only Canadian citizenship, I do not believe Wikipedia should list him as British-Canadian due to WP:NOR. What about someone with a single grandparent who is British? Again, does the person describe themselves as British-Canadian? What about someone with some vague ancestor who was British? Well, in this case, I think it is silly to describe the person as British-Canadian but if this information was cited, I wouldn't remove it. This is actually more often the case with someone of, say, Irish ancestry. It is occasionally relevant and really, if the person describes themselves that way, that's how they identify themselves. Even if they are wrong. :) Okay, so what about someone with one British parent, born in Canada, who does not describe themselves as British-Canadian (or for which no reliable citation can be found)? No. In my opinion, there is no basis to add the person into the category. They don't describe themselves this way, no reliable source describes them this way, and they hold only one citizenship. Two important points to note... Native tribes (pardon me if this is the wrong term) have their own definitions for who is part of their tribe. Some require 50% or higher blood to belong. Others require 12.5%. Some require but a single drop of blood. Again, in this case, I'd say the person belongs in the category if they describe themselves thusly or another reliable source can be found. The other matter is Jewish people. Being Jewish is both a racial description and a religious description. Also, the whole matter of Israel makes it also a national description. I may be a Jewish person "simply" by converting to Judaism, no matter what my nationality or birth. I mention this only because a lot of people describe themselves as "Jewish-American". SO, in summary: a person belongs in the category only if they hold dual-citizenship or describe themselves thusly, or if a reliable source can be found to cite the description. Otherwise, the person does not belong. --Yamla 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yamla, that is completely correct and the way it should be done. However, I will add that if a reliable source describes the person as "Whatever", that is fine. So, if The New York Times says "Keira Knightley is Jewish", we presume they checked their facts and we can put her in there (she isn't, I guess, but I am giving an example). Does this seem reasonable? And I would appreciate your contributions on the linked discussion, because it seems many people are leaning towards describing anyone as "X-American" because of their grandmother, etc. Mad Jack 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your input. It may be that in America, things are somewhat different in that the X American label is applied to people on a descent basis, which accords with the definition of Irish American in reputable refrerence works: "an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland" without specifying that they were born to Irish parents, were born in Ireland or identified as Irish. Arniep 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, arniep, allow me to quote this, from the NOR page, again: "But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion." So, to paraphrase: In an article about whether or not Person X is an Irish-American, Arniep is saying that, given a certain definition of Irish-Americans, that person is Irish-American. Regardless of the fact that Arniep's opinion appears to be supported by certain definitions of Irish-American, it remains Arniep's opinion. It must be supported by sources that express this opinion on the person themselves. Mad Jack 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your input. It may be that in America, things are somewhat different in that the X American label is applied to people on a descent basis, which accords with the definition of Irish American in reputable refrerence works: "an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland" without specifying that they were born to Irish parents, were born in Ireland or identified as Irish. Arniep 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yamla, that is completely correct and the way it should be done. However, I will add that if a reliable source describes the person as "Whatever", that is fine. So, if The New York Times says "Keira Knightley is Jewish", we presume they checked their facts and we can put her in there (she isn't, I guess, but I am giving an example). Does this seem reasonable? And I would appreciate your contributions on the linked discussion, because it seems many people are leaning towards describing anyone as "X-American" because of their grandmother, etc. Mad Jack 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Me again
Hey, sorry, it's me again! You mentioned the pictures in the article about Keira_Knightley. The headshot is depicting the actress in a movie screenshot (and of course, there is no reference to this movie in the introductory paragraph). You told me headshots of actors should not be from screenshots from films/TV. Secondly, it is a copyrighted image (as the uploader admits), it is high resolution etc. And it's okay in his case? Just because the uploader basically says: Hey, it's copyrighted and may be from a film but I'm using it to demonstrate the actress in it, so I think it's fair use, blah blah blah. It's like, okay, if you use a fair use rationale like this, which basically says something like "oh, I think we can use, it's fair use", everything is finally justifiable even though in essence it makes no difference from NOT saying it and still violates all of the copyright parametres. It's like we are deceive ourselves willingly. No essential difference, just a fair use rationale with no real practical significance. It doesn't make sense. And this guy did with to other images, too. Please, check out the Knightley image and explain me.
P.S.: Sorry if this came out aggressively now, but I'm not confronting you or something. I just don't think that the copyright system in Wikipedia makes sense because it does not follow any real consistency that carries some weight and importance with it. -- Xanthi22 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, the image in Keira Knightley was indeed being used to depict actress rather than to illustrate the film. I have removed it. Please note that there are probably hundreds of such copyright violations. I fix the ones I notice and have time to fix but there's simply no way I can get to them all. --Yamla 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hrithik Roshan
Hello, Yamla. Something really weird has happened: as I'm writing this, the entire artice for actor Hrithik Roshan has disappeared (along with it's history). The talk page is still there, though. Since you're an admin, maybe you can "see" things on that page I can't. Can you check what happened to it? (I'm still hoping it's just a temporary server glitch ...). Best regards, --Plumcouch 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. It was vandalised basically to a blank page, then nominated for speedy deletion and deleted (by another admin) overly fast. --Yamla 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Mena Suvari
I noticed you put unverified tags on the images in the Mena Suvari article but I couldn't find them on the unverified image page. Could you tell me what the problem with them is? Dismas|(talk) 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neither have detailed fair-use rationales for their use in that page. --Yamla 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks but I don't understand completely. The second image has a few rationales for its use on the image description page. If that's not good enough, what needs to be there? Dismas|(talk) 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the second image does have a detailed fair-use rationale but the image is actually being used to depict the actress, not to provide critical comment about the film itself. For that reason, no fair-use rationale is possible. The first image is again being used to depict the actress rather than to publicise the movie. As such, we cannot use a publicity picture for a movie. A good example of a detailed fair-use rationale is Image:Knightley - Johansson - Vanity Fair.jpg --Yamla 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. You've proven to me that I should never even touch an image relating to a celebrity or movie because the process is just much more trouble than its worth. I'm not a lawyer and don't intend on going to law school just so I can add images to articles. I don't understand legalese and I don't intend to try. Dismas|(talk) 00:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Proper Image Information
I noticed a bunch of my uploaded images were tagged for deletion. I was just wondering what all information I need to keep them here? -- Jay 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll check it out, thanks for all you're help, I was worried for a sec there! Thanks again. -- Jay 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Help!!!!!!
How do I upload images? What is a source filename? I'm confused! Please reply a.s.a.p.! -MCRGIRL
Check out WP:Image and more specifically, Wikipedia:Uploading images. I hope that helps! --Yamla 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Tpgracesnl.jpg
go ahead and delete the image. found no use for it.Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Playgirl
Was just moving the image to playgirl since I deleted it from Brad Pitt didn't want to offend the person who uploaded it.Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Besides if you said it yourself on the image "Image may ONLY be used to illustrate the publication of the issue in question. It may not be used to illustrate the magazine generally and may not be used solely to depict the actor in question. " Why was it removed from the Playgirl article where it clearly makes mention of it. Myrockstar 07:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- While there is no doubt that the image would be appropriate on the article about Playgirl, it does need a detailed fair-use rationale. You are right that the article makes explicit mention of that particular issue. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Wmagcovbrad.JPG
There is now a mention of the notable event for which I intended to use the image in question on the article of Brad Pitt. Myrockstar 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- That looks good to me. You have done a good job, Myrockstar. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Nrview.jpg
You said "Was being used to depict person, not to talk about that episode of The View." Thats exactly right, I used to image to depict Nicole Richie and not the episode of the view. If I am wrong in putting the image, please direct me to the place where it says it's only correct to use an image of a television show to talk about the show itself. Myrockstar 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. See Image:Nrview.jpg. The license itself says "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or the program and its contents". Note specifically that it does NOT allow you to use it solely to depict the person involved, as it was being used. You could place the image lower down in the page, attached to a section which specifically discusses her appearance on The View. But you cannot use it as the main image depicting Ms. Richie. --Yamla 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, thank you for pointing that out, I'll try harder to find a correct image.Myrockstar 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just asking
Dear Yamla, I've provided a new fair use rationale for this image. I hope you could check it out for me and tell me whether it's correct. Thanking you in advance! Hariharan91 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is good if and only if the image is being used to illustrate the movie, not the actress. That is, it could be used on the movie's page. It could also be used on the actress's page attached to a section (not at the top) which goes into detail about the movie. That is, a paragraph or so of why that movie was particularly relevant to the actress's career. The image cannot be used solely to depict the actress, however, no matter what the fair-use rationale says. --Yamla 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can I place this image in the Filmography section of the Trisha Krishnan article? Hariharan91 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No. It can only be used if there's a substantial discussion of that movie on the Trisha Krishnan page. A paragraph several lines of text would probably suffice. At the moment, there isn't anything like that there. --Yamla 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Aly & AJ - On The Ride (Concert DVD) - Front Cover.jpg
I don't understand what the problem with this image is? It's the official cover used to illustrate the DVD article in question (On The Ride (Concert DVD)). You said I needed a 'detailed fair-use rationale', but I thought that the {DVDcover} tag was sufficient for DVD covers? Was I out of line by adding 'Cut-down from original size, considered Fair Use to illustrate the proper articles', and should I just remove that, and it'll be ok? Please explain what's wrong with having it in the article. Thank You. Jay 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
_-_Front_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
- That's a general license. It needs a note indicating that it is used in that article to illustrate the publication of the DVD, etc. Consider: you are uploading it and using it in just that one place. But what if someone else comes along and adds it to ten other articles? It would be hard to tell if the image was being used fairly in each place without the detailed fair-use rationale for each use. --Yamla 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- How's this:
- "Official DVD cover of the 2005 Aly & AJ release On The Ride (Concert DVD).
- Considered Fair Use to be used in any article to illustrate Aly & AJ or the Aly & AJ release On The Ride (Concert DVD)
- as long as no profit is made, and
- it is used only to properly illsutrate the article." Does that hit the mark? Jay 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- To properly illustrate the DVD in question. :) The rest looks good. --Yamla 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I'll add that info and return the DVD Cover to the article. Thanks a lot for all you're help. I appreciate it. Jay 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Signed comments
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I understand what you mean, but it didn't even occur to me that it was a problem until you told me. I'll leave it in future, if there are people who can't spell, that's their right ;-) thanks Rossrs 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem man.
It might look a little skimpy now, but it will grow as the rest of the article matures. Cheers. --P-Chan 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry !!
Hello Yamla, I'm French (so I'm sorry because maybe you won't understand all what I say !!)
In the T.I.'s article, I wrote the King album was Double Platinum (and it's wrong). It's a mistake and I didn't want to be a vandalist. I'm sorry !! Thanks.
86.195.125.203 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Pfeiffer
Thanks, it is a great pic. I added a source - I hope that's ok. Mad Jack 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
T.I.
Is there anyway you can protect T.I.'s page from vandalism?? 68.154.15.86 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's only meant to be used for a short time. And as you are an anonymous user, it'd also block you. :( --Yamla 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just made a screenname :) Bad Chick 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
In an attempt to "not scare off the newbies" I've added some information to the talk page for an image uploaded by User:Vinaixa67: Image:Sonblue 02.jpg. With luck it will be some help and that user will be able to get the rest of the way on his/her own. Hope this is useful. Crypticfirefly 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How did vadilize the Paris Hilton page. I added her album cover. How is that vandilizim plus the info for the Paris album cover is all true.
- Did you even look at the preview? And the information on the image page is missing the detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How do I make it fit in the preview box on the Paris Hilton Page?
Use of Copyright Images on Personal Pages
I don't know how you got to find that I used Copyrighted images on my user page, but you need to use this method more to find more people who are using copyrighted images on their user pages and note them. User:Translucid2k4 is using some, I don't know how the user didn't get noted yet while I got the warning directly. -- Omernos 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Trisha Krishnan picture (again) *sigh*
Hello, Yamla. User:Thamizhan has uploaded two picture: the copyright-violating one of actress Trisha Krishnan and one for a movie, Thirumalai. Both fair use rationales state that a Venu Arvind, who is once credited as cinematographer and photographer. I googled the hell out of the web to determine if this claims are true, but didn't find anything. (There's a TV actor named Venu Arvind but that's it.) From my POV, User:Thamizhan has added wring copyright information so he can keep his pictures. Could you talk to him, please? --Plumcouch 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
A question
Hello, I have a question. I list some foreign language sites as references to an article. Should I use the original sites as links or should I use the translated sites (via Google)? The translation is occasionally very awkward, but still, it is the only solution for someone who doesn't know, say, French but wants to click on the links and read them.Thanks in advance -- Xanthi22 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The correct answer is that you should search for an English language article which references the information. Barring that, though, the best answer is to link to the French site, noting that the link is to a French article, possibly providing a secondary link to the google translation. But the primary link should be to the original article. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Yamla
I dont understand. Why does this image have copyright problems. I just copied the same thing that was on this image. Why is it that only my image has been tagged with several copyright and non fair-use tags whilst the other one is going to remain there? 60.48.218.22 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't compare one image to another. I'm not at all convinced that the image of Trisha Krishnan is valid and Wikipedia is filled with many images used dubiously. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping the Merrill Lynch page safe and blocking Pittrader !
--Ray 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Guess what: copy vio again
Hello, Yamla, it's me again. There have been problems with User:Kadavul over at Ajith Kumar's article. The guy keeps adding a copyvio picture time and again. I have written messages into my edit summary and one onto his talk page, but to no avail. Also, he has edited the filmography and added instead of roles the actor plays, all his co-stars. I remember an edit war between fans of Ajith Kumar and Joseph Vijay who have been doing this to "prove" their actor is better, because he/she has worked with "better" co-stars. I really don't want that to happen again. Could you talk to Kadavul? Thanks a ton. --Plumcouch 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Sorry to bother you all the time.
- I'll take a look at it. --Yamla 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The picture I have problems with is this one: [2]. When you scroll down, you'll see a small note with URLs which indicates *why* I doubt the copyright status of that pictures. --Plumcouch 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tamil-cinema-movies-news-ajith.jpg){kind=link}
Your recent edit to Dr. Allison Cameron
You removed all the images... which qualify under WP:Fairuse#Images with the comment "Removed images without detailed fair-use rationales." Could you please explain what you mean/want? I've noticed that images of this character have been removed before and in my opnion it is fundemental to the article to identify the person with a picture... so if there's somthing I could do to make the images stick, please let me know. I've temporarily reverted you because I think it is that important to the 'pedia to have these images. Crazynas t 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- All copyrighted images must have a detailed fair-use rationale and this is clearly spelled out by the license. See this bit on fair-use rationales. At the moment, these images are copyright violations but I'll let them stand because it is likely that at least one can be justified properly. --Yamla 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not confuse me with User:Ae 3, whom you blocked for one month, when you read my comment. Since I have marked the image with the {{Promotional}} tag and placed the URL of the web page in the image description page, should the changes to remove the image from Kaci Brown be reverted, or should I nominate the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio because 48 hours have not yet passed and it is not used in Kaci Brown? Jesse Viviano 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll mark it with {{orfud}} and if it isn't used within seven days, it will be deleted automatically. In my opinion, it can now be added back to the Kaci Brown article, though that particular article isn't on my watchlist. If you want to do that, please go ahead and then remove the ophaned tag. Thanks for tracking down the source! --Yamla 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Jennifer Aniston
I don't know if you have a problem with deleting photos, because alot of the topics in here are about photos, but if (promophoto) isn't a good enough liscensing tag, then what is? Does Wikipedia have to be such a tight ass dealing with pictures, that any picture that isnt uploaded correctly should be deleted? I mean seriously. Wikipedia has lost a great number of liscencing tags when you upload an image, which makes it harder and harder to find one to use. So if you can find a good enough tag, to use for the Jennifer Aniston image I uploaded, so people could see what she looked like, i'd really like to hear some feedback. --koolgiy 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not sure which image you are referring to. {{Promophoto}} is a perfectly fine tag provided that the copyright holder is identified, provided evidence is given showing that the image came from a promotional kit or otherwise was specifically released for promotion, and provided a detailed fair-use rationale is listed for every use of the image in a Wikipedia article. Most of this is explained in the subst'ed license text itself. One problem is that people (though not necessarily you) often just use that tag for images that were not released for promotion, or fail to include a detailed fair-use rationale for their use. --Yamla 01:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok if thats not a good tag, and I don't think that was from a promo kit, (It was froma photo shoot, unfortunatley there isn't a tag for photo shoots) then I dont know what tag will work. If you can find one put it on.--koolgiy 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if the photo shoot was released for promotional purposes, it would be an appropriate tag. If it wasn't released for promotional purposes, the tag wouldn't be appropriate. In fact, probably no tag would be appropriate as we couldn't use the copyrighted image under fair-use. Wikipedia cannot just use copyrighted images. In fact, we should be using far fewer than we are. In general, it is a violation of copyright to use someone else's copyrighted image. Still, if you let me know which image we are talking about, I'll take a look. --Yamla 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)