User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive1 User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive2
[edit] <no subject>
how do i fix it? i looked on that page and i cant make heads or tells of it. Im kind of a newbie sorry. can you help?BlueShrek 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well how do i explain it?BlueShrek 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Getsumen_to_heiki_mina.JPG
I didn't say, "I'm using the boilerplate template as the rationale." I said, "Is the rationale under the template insufficient?" I had written a rationale below the template. That's moot, since I've reiterated it in the non-free media rationale template I've added. I suppose it stands out more that way. I was trying to clarify whether you meant there was no rationale (which there was) or if the one that was there was insufficient. Leebo T/C 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the "Gan Ning" image
Copyright info's already present and accounted for and can be found in the summary: "Copyright 2005 Koei".
The source of the image is also there: "Shin Sangoku Musou 4 Artbook". Gamer Junkie 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's also a fair use rationale already in place. Gamer Junkie 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, as you're the one requesting an in-depth fair use rationale, perhaps you should at least take the time to explain to me what it is that you want done while you're here asking that I do it. Gamer Junkie 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent "no source" notification
Hi. I'm wondering why you left this message. First, you left it on a bot's talk page instead of the original uploader's. Second, the image was never tagged as lacking source information. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Interputnik logo.gif
Hi there, I added the fair use justification, it looks ok now. Also I took the liberty of removing the tag. If you think anythings missing let me know. RIP-Acer 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yamadas.jpg
You left me a message saying that the image is missing a fair use rationale - but there is a section 'fair use' on the image page Image:Yamadas.jpg#Fair use for My Neighbors the Yamadas. Do you use a bot to hand out fair use warnings - or is something missing in the fair use rationale, if so please let me know what I need to add. Ninja neko 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah okay, I totally misread the date on that message, hence the confusion... thank goodness that it's a Friday, this week shouldn't last much longer :) Ninja neko 09:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply re: Image:Will & Grace title card.jpg
The fair use rationale for the image can be found beneath the heading that says fair use rationale. As for a more detailed source, I will add that. WindsorFan 09:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Image:Louis_braille.svg
Can you help me fix the license then please because i'm new and i dont really understand how it works Dhill3 Ok, thanks for that
[edit] Image:Kelli Maroney.JPG
Thanks for the note - the permission has been forwarded to the OTRS system (I'm not sure how long they're taking to process them). Videmus Omnia 10:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image Upload
Thank you for the help. I followed the instructions and it works. Madeeha2 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] regarding Image Upload
sorry bout that I'm still in the process of editing the page. I'll edit that later If thats okay with you
[edit] Question
Can you pls tell me how to post the Pictures. 5 pictures in a row, with 2 rows. Thanks
[edit] Scala crest
The license is where I specified in the image's page!!!! Don't you have anything better to do in Wikipedia? --Attilios 12:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your message
Hi, thanks for writing and hope you're doing well! I received your message about the Roberto Fabbriciani photo which I obtained permission to use at Wikipedia yesterday, after trying for 1 year. I'm quite happy about this. Since I did include all the correspondence, including the release granting permission for the image to be reused for any purpose by anyone, I'm a bit confused at your message to me. I suppose it was just an automated mistake. Happy editing, Badagnani 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] fair use rationale
Hi, just wanted to tell you, you left two entries at my talk page about images without a fair use rationale, but both did have one. It's no problem, and I updated them now to that fair use rationale template in case that's what your script looks for - just wanted to let you know so you can improve this in the future and don't include images which already have a fair use rationale. --Allefant 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Quadrophenia_(soundtrack).jpg
The image you have tagged has a SPECIFIC rationale, an image tag, and a source. All three are of a standard that has been derived from much research including, but not limited to several discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums with administrators. I would appreciate it if you would leave me a message as to specifically what more is needed so I can 1)share it with many others in WP:Albums and 2)begin re-editing my other 400 or so images accordingly. I would further more appreciate your haste in this request as I am currently in the tedious process of updating all my images to meet the newly enforced (if not newly clarified) standards and do not wish to waste any more time making incomplete edits. Thank you (Sampm 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
- As stated on the users page, this would seem to have been a serious mistag, based on the visiblity of the source information. ShakespeareFan00 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- NP...I'm just glad that I don't have to re-edit as I am nearly done with this last change (only about a hundred or so images left). If you do find any of my images lacking it may be b/c I haven't gotten to them yet. Give me a week or so and I plan to be finished. Thanks again. (Sampm 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Image Question
What do you mean by your statement of "timecode of the relevant frame"? TrackFan 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying this. I will need some time so I can fix this little problem with the rest of the screen captures and I will be gone for awhile. TrackFan 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Image:Grumman (FMA).JPG
Actually, that is one of my planned summer projects. The entire group of screenshots I took for the program are to be updated to make them fair-use compliant, the only hang up was at the time school ended there was still some ongoing discussion about how best to claim fair use for screenshots and the like. I fully intend to update all the FMA images, I just need a little time to gather all the newly needed data to update them correctly the first time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I had a chance to update all FMA screenshots I loaded with the non fair use compliance template, so all nessicary information should now be present on all related FMA image pages, Grumman included. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Hi. About my images, East0051 and East0057; what is "sourcing information"? I'm a bit vague about this. The shots are all my own, so their source is my slide collection.
Sardaka 08:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 'Fair Use' common phrase at the time
Sorry it took so long, to see your tag/edit for 
. There was no real rationale given simply because at the time of upload, most other clips just said "Fair Use" and that was it. I just followed the crowd, so-to-speak. The situation has been remedied (I hope!) :-) serak 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Own collection?
Does this mean I have to say something like "Sydney Hotel from editor's collection", or something like that?
Sardaka 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding FUR
Hey, there! Would it be possible that besides notifying the uploader you could also leave a warning on the referring article's talk page as well? Regards —Lesfer (t/c/@) 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I think so. At least Betacommand used to do it a lot. Here's an example. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Homestar Runner.png
I captured the frame two and a half years ago. If I had noted the time then, I certainly don't know what it is now. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:InfernalMachine_Volodnikov.png
I have tagged Image:InfernalMachine_Volodnikov.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please see what I have written on my user page. In short, I have no idea, I never payed any attention to what the image is, why it was uploaded etc. You know just as well as I do. --Tene 20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Image:131222 beauty l.jpg
Pardon my lack of clarity on this, but what is a "volume code"? --FuriousFreddy 21:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Waynegacy.jpg
The image was uploaded long time ago, and I really can't find which police department took the picture. I only know it was taken when he was arrested in 1968. It's hard to find exact source for mugshot. If the policy mandates its deletion, feel free to do so. WooyiTalk to me? 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] About Image:Image-Saki Nijino.jpg
Hi, I added a fair use rationale to Image:Image-Saki Nijino.jpg, as you requested. Hope you'll find it suitable enough. Just in case, I'll let the template you put on the page, and let you remove it if you find the rationale fair enough. Just let me know if there's still a problem, and if that's the case, please guide me in order to make the image legitimate. Thanks in advance. AceNoctali 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, another thing : I saw that the source I gave a year ago for this picture is now broken. As I feared you would complain about it to, I posted proofs of the former source (cache versions of the page given by the WayBack Machine), and two new sources, on the picture's page. Hey, better be safe than sorry. I hope you'll find the picture completely legitimate now. If not, please help me doing the rights things in order to legitimate it. Thanks in advance ! AceNoctali 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] About Image:Groupbof3.jpg
Hello, I added more source info as you requested. If this isn't enough information feel free to leave another message on my talk page. Stills64 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] what is source information?
can i ask you what source information is?-hotspot
Hi, it should be deleted. Thanks. - Francis Tyers · 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elbaneh2.jpg
Hi, Thank you for uploading Image:Elbaneh2.jpg,however it would be much appreciated if you could expand or clarify the sourcing information you have provided in the image summary., In particular which law enforcement agency took the photo originally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakespeareFan00 (talk • contribs)
- Hi, have added proximal source, to the image. Rich Farmbrough, 09:28 9 July 2007 (GMT).
[edit] ponzi mugshot
I just got it from the site http://c.ponzi.tripod.com/ as I've mentioned in the image. It doesn't specify which law enforcement agency took it. So I'm afraid I don't know but perhaps it's one of the US's. Idleguy 12:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please double check
While your work clearing out Category:Mug shots is appreciated, in the future would you mind glancing over the provided information before adding fair-use-delete templates? Going back over your contributions, I've so far found two cases where the images were in the public domain (Image:Hilton mug shot.jpeg (discussed on the talk page) and Image:Lena kleinschmidt.jpg (discussed on the image page itself)). Until last year, {{mugshot}} was a free-license template, and several uploaders added it as additional clarification on public domain mugshots (or just to avoid adding Category:Mug shots themselves). In any case, just giving you a heads-up. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it would. However, since last year Crown Copyright images require a Fair Use rationale to remain on Wikipedia due to restrictions on the creation of derivative versions (provided Crown copyright hasn't expired, and while I know British Crown Copyright expires after 50 years, I'm not sure on the term for Australia's version). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, as with Australian Crown Copyright, Canadian Crown Copyright images require fair use rationales until the licence expires. The source and author of the image remains the individual police department (as noted) regardless of the copyright ownership. While the CCC should perhaps be noted somewhere to make it easier to determine when the image will fall into the public domain, it's not strictly required. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I personally feel that <place> police department is sufficient in most cases (excepting irregular names for the offices). Works by the department will be owned either by the specific department or by the region's government; in which case crediting to a subdivision works just as well (In the same way that {{PD-USGov-Military}} and {{PD-USGov}} templates are interchangable on DoD-produced media). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all! I just don't have time myself to pore over the records for more specific crediting – others are more than welcome to improve on any aspect of the description page or rationale (for example adding rationales for use in multiple articles: I only add them for use in articles on the people themselves.) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I personally feel that <place> police department is sufficient in most cases (excepting irregular names for the offices). Works by the department will be owned either by the specific department or by the region's government; in which case crediting to a subdivision works just as well (In the same way that {{PD-USGov-Military}} and {{PD-USGov}} templates are interchangable on DoD-produced media). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, as with Australian Crown Copyright, Canadian Crown Copyright images require fair use rationales until the licence expires. The source and author of the image remains the individual police department (as noted) regardless of the copyright ownership. While the CCC should perhaps be noted somewhere to make it easier to determine when the image will fall into the public domain, it's not strictly required. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Veteransbridgepgh.jpg
You tagged this as unsourced but its got a pd-self tag on it and is clearly non-commercial. I have removed the csd from this but would be open to further reasoning why the image should be deleted. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Manual_planes_v3_cover.jpg
- I have tagged Image:Manual_planes_v3_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added a fair-use rationale to the Image:Manual_planes_v3_cover.jpg page. Do you consider that acceptible? — RJH (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thats fine, although you might want to look at other examples in the same category, if you wanted to go into more depth :) ShakespeareFan00 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PZO1000 180.jpeg
You tagged Image:PZO1000 180.jpeg as having no fair use rationale... not that it really needs a strong one since it's a book cover used in the article about the book, but it already has one. Did you not see it, or do you feel that it's inadequate in some way? Either way, I'm on hiatus for the foreseeable future, and just happened to hit the front page to search for something when I saw that you'd left me a message. If you feel like reverting your change, great, otherwise... *shrug* -Harmil 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Fair use rationale for Image:Castle_Amber_X2.jpg
I'm really not sure what you are looking for. The image has been up since 2005, and there has been no problem with it. Further, I've already put in a Fair Use statement. I'd forgotten about the article and image, as I haven't touched the article since September 7, 2005. Seems as if a lot of changes have been made to Wikipedia policy since I uploaded this image, and I've honestly not kept up with a lot of the policies, as I haven't been seriously editing or creating articles beyond minor corrections (spelling, grammar, that vein). Until your message, I hadn't even looked at the article, and I have just edited it to reflect a change. I can't really provide the rationale required as I do not know the source of the work and copyright information, nor do I know which particular edition (publisher, market & year of publication) of the edition you have used, and also acknowledge any cover artist if such artist is acknowledged in that edition's frontmatter. I don't have access to my copy of the module in question, and I don't think I originally scanned it, it's been 2 years :)
If the image needs to be deleted due to new policy violations, I guess it needs to be deleted then. Thanks for contacting me regarding this, wish I could help more.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use for Image:Ac.howardministry.jpg
Hi. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with fair use images. I've just tried to provide a fair-use rationale for Image:Ac.howardministry.jpg, but it's not an area I know much about, so I'd appreciate any corrections or feedback you might have.
Did you use a bot to leave that message at user talk:Adam Carr? Because I feel pretty certain you didn't read the top section of that page before you left that message. Perhaps it would be wise to slow down a little? Cheers, CWC 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationales
You're welcome. Thanks for pointing out the images that needed rationales in the first place. Let me know if you come across any more, although the ones you identified were pretty old and any of my newly uploaded images all have detailed rationales, so there shouldn't be too many others out there. In any case, glad we could get this taken care of. Fairsing 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use for Image:GargoyleCover.png
Hi, I would have thought that the information already provided -- "Scan of the cover of Gargoyle by David Colins and Skip Williams (TSR, Inc., 1989) Original cover artwork by David Dorman Fair use of copyrighted material (book cover)" would be sufficient, certainly based on my understanding of the fair use rules (indeed cover art is explicitly mentioned).
Could you explain (rather than simply pointing to links that don't clarify what I've done wrong) why the information provided is inadequate? Callum 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jackpoint.jpeg
Like it says on the opage, "For copyright issues with 2000AD-owned images, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics#2000_AD" This explains the free use rationale. Vizjim 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Fair use rationale for Image:James_Gregory_caricature.gif
Hi, ShakespeareFan. I found this image in a press kit, which clearly states that the images and audio clips are free to use in media and promotions. (And the article does contain a little bit of information on critical commentary on the subject of the artcle.) Someone changed the template from {{Non-free promotional}} to {{Non-free character}}. The new template doesn't seem very applicable to this image. Anyway, should I go to the trouble of typing up a fair use rationale, or would it just be a waste of time? If the image is going to be deleted anyway, I don't want to waste my time tying to figure out what the fair use rationale needs to say. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mothertime
i visited the wikipedia guideline and it said that you may include why this picture should be used in articles. So is it okay if i write that in the summary box? Thedeadmanandphenom 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
how's that?Thedeadmanandphenom 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I swear if you don't stop marking my images for random shit there will be hell to pay.
I am so sick of getting contentless walls of text on my talk page from your bot about things that I've corrected three times over. Go. Away. - The Norse 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, there won't. I would like to suggest to the owner of the bot, however, that the wall of text is rather unnecessary, and should be slimmed down. Octane [improve me] 11.07.07 1828 (UTC)
[edit] <No subject>
I fixed the Non-embed thing so now remove ot from the unfree-images
D e n v e r T h e V i r u s 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging
Hello, I'm fairly new to uploading to wikipedia, I do it through the commons where I can. What sort of detailed explanation would you think appropriate? I notice other users uploading something similar have put something like "used under fair use to illustrate submarine x. Which seems pretty close to what I've been putting. Your guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks. Benea 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the rationale for HMS Tigris (N63) so that it is 'FULLER'. Would this suffice? Kind regards, Benea 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I've seen what you've done. I assume it would be ok for me to put on the other badges where the submarine was not sunk, to say that they have since been decommissioned/scrapped? Benea 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've seen Torbay's now, so that answers my question. Kind regards, Benea 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The badges come from here [1], of which I've uploaded them to illustrate the British S class submarine (1931) articles, the River class submarines, the British U class submarines and as you've seen, so far some of the British T class submarines. I think they make a nice addition, since the vast majority of photographs are black and white. Yep, Thetis is rather infamous! She's lost more than her fair share of crews. Benea 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've seen Torbay's now, so that answers my question. Kind regards, Benea 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I've seen what you've done. I assume it would be ok for me to put on the other badges where the submarine was not sunk, to say that they have since been decommissioned/scrapped? Benea 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I'm adding badges to the ones that don't have them yet, using the new template, so everything should run smoothly. Benea 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] your tagging is bordering on abuse
You have been posting excessive and inaccurate tags on many Wikipedia images/articles. Please reconsider your actions as they have become harmful to Wikipedia as a whole.
[edit] ISTE Certificate
I am new to uploading images and am unsure about the tag i should use.
The certificate is with college, so i believe the college has rights to it as it now owns it. I had called up the college to ask permission to use a scan of the page, the college said the prospectus is a public domain document, so to use screenshots and content from it , i dont need permission from them.
Which tag should i use ? --Hmachine1 07:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair Use rationales :: RJHall
- Above struck thru, Thanks :)
- BTW any chance of going through the relevant categories and attempting to add rationales for uploads by others?
- ShakespeareFan00 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry, I don't think I'd find that task at all interesting. — RJH (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Icon
The icon is my own creation. How can I prove this if I'm releasing it to the public domain without any copyrights anyway? Thanks. --Lanternix 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ebin
it is not my creation but taken by somebody who has given the photo strictly for academic use only... ebin viswanath 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
okay im really lost with what you send me last --Thirdayparadise 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] rationale
I added a fair use rationale to Image:SHSClogo.gif. Please tell me if it is adequate. --Ks0stm 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Image:Nellygood.jpg, Image:GiveItToMe_TIM_NF_JT.jpg, Image:Potential.jpg
I wasn't the original uploader of those images; I merely reverted the uploads of a user who, for some reason, had decided to change the dimensions of them so that the width was equal to the height, making them look wrong. Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:KoreaCyclingFederation.png
A rational was provided. Suggest you read details on image page properly before commenting. Mauls 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Corey Maye
Hmm, I see we're no longer accepting all mugshots/booking photos/prison IDs as PD.
I'll have to look a bit ... I think that photo was found by the blogger who popularized the case; I don't know where it might be now. He's a prisoner; so maybe we can argue irreplaceability on those grounds. Daniel Case 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair Use
Hi! You asked me to provide a fair use rationale for two pictures I uploaded. Can you please advise how does this:
This is the cover of the Angel Of Darkness DVD. It is here reproduced in low resolution to illustrate the article about the anime (namely, the infobox). This represents educational purposes and cannot harm the producer's interests, so it falls under the Fair Use umbrella.
Not satisfy the fair use criteria? It has been a while since I last uploaded anything and the criteria might have changed.
Thanks! --SidiLemine 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a good DVD cover fair use rationale example. I might pick one you haven't tagged yet.
- These rationales were good enough to pass articles through FAC a few months ago. If nothing has changed, they still are. They are low res covers used on their own article. If you don't have an exact critic to make or a comparative example, please remove your tags until you do.
Thanks, --SidiLemine 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tagging images
When tagging images that have no fair use rationale, it is important to notify the uploader of the image on their talk page, and make a note on the pages of articles that use the image. This can be accomplished automatically via WP:TWINKLE or you can do it by hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Joss possible.png
It would be much appreciated if you would carry out this research yourself. The information is available on the appropriate Wikipedia page.
perfectblue 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:New_Official_Logo_of_Tasmania.jpg
I have tagged Image:New_Official_Logo_of_Tasmania.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using non-free fair use in|article name or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please update your robot to take into account the fact that rationale for use of an image is present. The other way is to actually read the page content, which I have to assume you do. You would not be stupid enough to tag an image to be deleted without having verified that the image violates whatever current policy Wikipedia has in place, surely?Sa cooke 14:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Hinoportugal.mid
I've reverted the edits for speedy deletion of this file, since it does have a fair use rationale. Also, it's not even an image, it's a sound file, so I doubt it was even you yourself who actually looked at the file and just used some bot for reasons that surpass me. I've added squares and "Fair use rationale" so it's clear it does have one. Thanks.Pedrovsk 14:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shannen Doherty
Just have the wikipedia staff erase it. Like what I just had with Rlest a little bit ago, I don't care enough to put out the info for the images. Just have them erased. Jade Owl 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
