User talk:Xanthi22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Xanthi22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DS 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Sarahmiles.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarahmiles.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello everybody
Hello everybody! I must confess I am quite lost!! I've been a user of Wikipedia for only a month now! Any suggestions for improvement (I've written an article on Alice de Janzé (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_de_Janzé)) are welcome! Xanthi22
[edit] Thoughts
So far, the article looks very good. Keep it up.
Can you do more articles of that level of quality? DS 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How to sign
In order to sign-and-datestamp a message on a talk page, you type four tildes. If you type three, it's just signing, and if you type five, it's just datestamping (or maybe it's vice-versa, I'm not sure).
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Cyblade.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cyblade.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
The Clive Barker-related articles seem okay, although were I you I'd work on getting my sentence structure to be a bit more... elegant. As is, your clauses interrupt each other a bit too frequently. DS 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On Laura San Giacomo pictures
You said: "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."
- 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)
[edit] Knightley
You said: "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. "
- 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 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Alice de Janzé new photos
The {{Newspapercover}} license says: "This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article ..." (italics by me), the fair use Newspapercover license does not cover taking only a photo from a newspaper's page. Please fix this. feydey 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- As I see - You can either 1) change the license of the images or 2) upload the article scans where the images are also. Best, feydey 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding: "...it is fair use 1) either if the publication name can be seen on the image itself or 2) if it is mentioned in the image description (which I did in both images). So I think they are ok as they are, they are still fair use." — Please read the {{Newspapercover}} license text again... and think if the images are: scans of a newspaper page or article... Got it? (The current license is not correct now.) feydey 00:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I.e. the {{Newspapercover}} license is used for scans like: Image:RobertBuck 1930.jpg, Image:The Saturday Press.gif or Image:Nytimes1968electionpage.jpg. feydey 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Best to scan the full articles. And then just upload with the same name as the current images, so they replace them. :) feydey 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tag
You might be able to use {{pd-old}} but that depends on when the author/photographer died. If you don't know that date, you might have to use on of the Fair use tags instead. Angela. 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:LiTobler.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LiTobler.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Translations
You said: "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"
- 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)
[edit] Damala
Okay, I've looked at the article, and made numerous small changes; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Damala&diff=63522760&oldid=63515861 if you want to see the exact difference.
Also, I have to say that Damala seems like a real asshole. DS 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
