User:Hammersoft/NotFreeAnymore
Only Fools Image
Fuck Wikipedia. The image i upload was created in GIMP on my laptop, and the images i used were on Wikipedia anyway, so where's the harm in using them on another page? *rolls eyes* Dyl (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whether you created File:Only Fools and Horses Logo.png yourself or not, the fact is it is a copy of a copyrighted work. Slavishly reproducing a copyrighted work does not transfer rights to you. Further, it's blatantly obvious you took File:Only fools logo.jpg and cropped and rotated to produce your version of the image, making this a derivative work of the copyrighted original. The artifacts from your imperfect cropping are blatantly apparent in the blown up version [1], and map with the original. We do not tolerate copyright violations here. Period. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is making an image like it, but completely from scratch (making it look cartoonish) still violating or is that allowed? Dyl (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can create an image that is inspired by, but it can not be based on, another image that is copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is making an image like it, but completely from scratch (making it look cartoonish) still violating or is that allowed? Dyl (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
UAOE
There is no other way to link to this by instant messaging, as the colon that Wikipedia stupidly uses separates links from text when i type it. Dyl (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't Wikipedia's problem. We don't permit redirects from article space to userspace. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
GarnetAndBlack
Please investigate the user named GarnetAndBlack and take appropriate action. He/she/their constant deletion of sourced material on articles related to the University of South Carolina without any discussion or consensus makes some of us wonder if he/she/them are employees of the University, especially since the University has a student publication named Garnet & Black. In particular, GarnetAndBlack has deleted recent contributions to the South Carolina Gamecocks football article by claiming NPOV and/or edit warring. However, this same user makes edits to Clemson (rival school) articles that could be NPOV and then blasts any user for deleting his/her/their edits. This is hypocritical! Attempts to make the University related articles more realistic and reduce the overly positive slant have met with constant deletion/reverting. When attempts are made to replace the material, GarnetAndBlack threatens a block based on edit warring. This is abusive! From a review of this user's contributions, it is obvious that this user is on Wikipedia solely to protect these articles. Anything negative (even when it is well sourced) gets deleted, so no new content (unless it's glowing praise of the subject) gets in. I noticed in this user's contributions that you had previous contact with this user and had your own suspicions. I hope you can deal with this user appropriately. 71.75.202.139 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I previously requested a sockpuppet investigation which yielded nothing. I can't help you. I suggest you raise the issue at WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
non-free images
Not going to revert you but it does say on nfcc that pages can temporarily have them if they are there for administrative decisions, this has been done numerous times in the past. It's also why I added that page to the category that you put such temporary uses into. -DJSasso (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- That category exists for an extremely limited number of cases. Adding the category doesn't grant you a free pass to violate the policy. The example page you created works just fine with example.jpg in it. It does not require a non-free image to be shown in it. Policy on this is clear; we do not host non-free content outside of the main article namespace. If you want to get an exemption from that policy, you're going to have to appeal to WT:NFC first. But, a template isn't going to get an exception. This template is not an administrative need. The exemption you are claiming does not in fact exist for this template nor would it. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would note that NFCC is a guideline and not a policy, thus it is not written in stone. This is exemption has been used countless times in various template discussions and the like in the past because we are trying to see how the templates look in a realistic situation, with an example image like that the various colours and busyness of the image throw the decisions on how the template looks off. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Restoring your comment to respond to one point that understandably generates confusion among some people. WP:NFCC is policy. WP:NFC is the supporting guideline, which transcludes the policy onto it. Some people cite WP:NFC as policy, because it contains the policy, but it's really a guideline. I always cite WP:NFCC when I am specifically referring to the policy for this reason, to help reduce confusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would note that NFCC is a guideline and not a policy, thus it is not written in stone. This is exemption has been used countless times in various template discussions and the like in the past because we are trying to see how the templates look in a realistic situation, with an example image like that the various colours and busyness of the image throw the decisions on how the template looks off. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Non free use images in Userspace
Hi, The bunch of warnings you just issued concern the content of a Wikipedia newsletter. Wikipedia rules a re not written in stone, and it is logical to assume that newsletters, as many do, can include some images that are used legally in article space, for illustration. How then, for example, by defining user space, would an author be expected to prepare an article in his sandbox, as is recommended?--Kudpung (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- This very topic is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:NFC#Non-free_images_on_sandbox.2Fuserspace_developing_articles. You're welcome to join the discussion. Also, the newsletter you want to have non-free content in is not going to get a free pass to host non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you appear to know so much about it, you may wish to be more helpful (and more civil) by explaining how I may have used the wrong copyright tag when uploading a UK county emblem that is in the public domain. See:WP:BEFORE --Kudpung (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- The image isn't an article. Regardless, I don't think I've been uncivil towards you in any respect. As for the public domain status of the image, there's no evidence presented so far that it is, in fact, in the public domain. In fact, quite the opposite. The image description page says "This is a logo owned by Worcestershire County Council for Worcestershire". Further, the source URL from which the image is taken has no release statement on it indicating the image has been released into the public domain or under a free license. The site does say "Use of the images in Wikipedia is allowed", but forbids commercial use. That license is incompatible with Wikipedia. Therefore, the image must be used under terms of fair use. --23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've read your topic discussion, and some of your points and suggestions are quite admirable. However, I'm afraid you haven't answered my question. I don't want a 'free pass' for anything. What I need is some help rather than being turned brusquely to a page full of jargon by the experts on image use. The website the county crest was ripped from is only a directory collection of badges, coats of arms, crests, and logos, and can exert no copyright ownership of them. The Worcestershire County Council website didn't have a crest big enough to download and save, or make a screen shot of under the FUR-logo that I usually use, so it isthe source you a re complaining about, not the FUR. To answer my question therefore, and as you are the expert on these matters, and as none of us can be expected to be experts on the millions of aspects of Wikipedia bureaucracy, perhaps you could proffer the correct FUR for an English county emblem, or national flag for that matter, because they will have the same rationale- wherever they came from or who actually created them. many thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the fair use rationale that is on the image File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg. It is perfectly fine the way it is. The problem is we do not permit non-free images to be used outside of the main article namespace. This is codified in our policy at WP:NFCC #9, where it says "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace". Removing non-free content where it is displayed outside of articles is routine work. There's a huge list of violations of the policy updated daily. That's how I came across your usage of this file, as it was the one file with the most violations (13) today. See #972-984 on that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, I am familiar with WP:NFCC #9 but you are still not answering my question. (before you simply cite Burden of Prroof). If you didn't delete the other image that was on the newsletter, please tell me which licence to chose that will allow the county crest to be used on the newsletter. I've obviously chosen the wrong one that's all, but I can't figure out which should be the right one.--Kudpung (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is no license to choose that will allow you to use it on the newsletter. The image is not free of copyright. Since it is not free of copyright, it may not be used outside of articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Penguins Flyers Rivalry Images
How were the two images used in Penguins-Flyers Rivalry any different than Bengals-Steelers rivalry? If they already exist on another article whats the harm in using them on another? Orracle107 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific fair use rationale for each use of the item. Those are lacking in the case of Penguins–Flyers Rivalry. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)