User talk:Natster237
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The leaner
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The leaner, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Feeeshboy 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't fully understand the copyright laws regarding pictures. I'm merely referring to this statement:
- "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale."
- which appears on these pictures' pages. I think these are terrific pictures and would really improve the page, but in my limited understanding of the fair use policy, this does not seem to be enough to satisfy the stated requirements. I wish I could help you with these, but I don't have the foggiest idea how. Feeeshboy 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I could be wrong, but as I read it, you need to state who created the image (i.e. who the photographer was), not simply what website you found it on. According to Wikipedia:Fair use, "Any image found on the Internet where the original source is unknown or not verifiable" is not acceptable for fair use. Feeeshboy 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Artistic works have to be pretty old (80 years) to be considered public domain, unless they are expressly released by their creators. I don't know how this works for press photography, though. It's all very complicated.
- As for the sockpuppet case, don't worry about it. There appears to be a real backlog of sock puppet cases, and the rule is that if no conclusion is reached after 10 days, the case expires. I thought I had a few pieces of good evidence, but I may have jumped to conclusions. I was just going for a warning, anyway; there certainly was never any case for blocking. If no one comments further over the next couple of days, I'll probably withdraw it. Feeeshboy 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
