File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg
Could you comment over at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turtle crossing sign JPG.jpeg about this image. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response; yep, it checks out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Your tag was reviewed and your concern was dismissed by two separate editors. Do not edit war. If you would like to stop wasting everyone's time with drive by tagging, and demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, then post your rationale on my talk page and we can discuss it. Before you do, I would suggest you actually read the article, because at this point, I very strongly doubt you have. Resolute 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
History of Sesame Street FAC
Hi Fasach,
I wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you were involved in regarding WP:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1 to its talk page, as per Sandy's recommendation. I moved your oppose, too, but returned it after I was told that I shouldn't have done it. I was also told to ping you, although as it turns out, it's not going to make much difference because it looks like Sandy's going to archive it because of lack of consensus. I also wanted to ask your opinion about an idea I had regarding the article's images. I've suggested that instead of the images being too few or not high enough quality, that we just not have any images at all. Does a featured article, especially one about the article's subject, *need* to have images? What do you think? Be honest, now! ;) Christine (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Image assistance
Am working on a page now that has a lot of images. Appreciate any advice on what to look for in terms of questionable stuff. See here: [1] TCO (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- HEY! That was a serious request for help. Would like a gander at these images with a bunch of different licences, and maybe learn myself how to think through some of these issues as well. Also, in particular wonder of this issue of when something is listed as government derived, but it's not really obvious the source (govt document or current web precense). TCO (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about File:Collared_Lizard_Albuquerque_NM_Preview.JPG regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), File:Cnemidophorus-ThreeSpecies.jpg is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, File:Reptiles.jpg has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On WP:MOS issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you are having trouble tracking images back to their source I would recommend tineye Fasach Nua (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had not been on wiki between first and second messages and would encourage you to check activity before leaving follow up messages. I have had a superficial look over this article and for the most part it is fine. I have concerns about File:Collared_Lizard_Albuquerque_NM_Preview.JPG regarding the email (not huge concerns, but concerns none the less), File:Cnemidophorus-ThreeSpecies.jpg is fine, it is basically CC with attributions, File:Reptiles.jpg has serious problems, it is derived from four different images, and the licensing for all must be compatible with the one used on the montage, this is currently not the case! On WP:MOS issues it is generally best practice to have images with faces look into the text, and for lists it is much tidier if all images use the same aspect ratio. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the comments! TCO (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I restored the non-free use rationale, you gave no reason for its removal. There was a discussion about that image in the FA nom which you started but did not reply to any further, sadly. Why remove the note now that the discussion is over? Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Image question
Your thoughts on this? It sounds good but ... Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is not implausible, although I would be wary of terms like "generally considered", the definition of "published" is crucial here, and the method and extent of publication should be stated, along with the states in which the publication was made Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd really like to see something a bit more authoritative on the legal side, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- [2] is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. TCO (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which entry do you feel bears on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- [2] is a photo lawyer's blog. Very far from definitive legal opinion that Wehwalt is going to buy, but still I donno...interesting. TCO (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- None. Sorry. :( There was one that did bear on something important a while ago. But I can't even recall what that was. I guess if you wanted an opinion you could pay her for one. Although I'm sure you could just look up right sort in DC as well at some big firm. Sorry, too much segue. Brain blood pressure dropping again (grr...) TCO (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. Anyway, including that in Allegro (musical) would be too much trouble for the worth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for image Assistance
I have little experience with the 'legality' of images and am presently reviewing a GAN. There are four images. Could you review them? I don't want to pass to GA until I'm absolutely sure the images are legal. The article is Delphine LaLaurie. I simply don't have the expertise to make any decision on the images. Thank you! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- They all seem fine, either the copyright has expired, or they are freedom of panorama, I would prefer they were tagged as {{PD-EU}} where appropriate so that they can be moved to commons which requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin, and thus allows them to be enjoyed by other projects Fasach Nua (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! We're fortunate to have someone here with your expertise! Thank you again! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
Malmö FF
Hi, could you please specify which images made you tag the article with the copyright warning? Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion please
I uploaded this image for possible use in the History of the New York Jets article. You have one side, the other is a Johnny Walker Red logo. My position is that as it contains for the most part dates and city names (plus the team name of the Jets and the football image, I believe the TM refers to the other side, or possibly to the name "New York Jets"), it is too simple to be copyrighted and is PD. If your opinion is adverse, I will of course delete it, that is why I uploaded it to en wiki. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Appreciation for participating in an FAC
![]() |
<font=3> Thank you for your image checks and comments — Battle of Towton is now a featured article of the Wars of the Roses! Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | ![]() |
Hi, I was just wondering if you could quickly run over the images and make sure they're all okay? It shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and I would appreciate it. Thanks! – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)