User talk:Ivan Kricancic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Ivan Kricancic, 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!  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --TeaDrinker 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker 08:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of User:Ivan Kricancic

Please unblock him, the only pages he has vandalised are those of myself and a friend of ours, User:MetallicaGuy2.

It was only in jest. --robz0r 13:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not some personal playground of yours. Additionally, if he does not provide any edits to the encyclopedia (you know, the thingee that we are trying to write here), and continues with nonsense contributions and vandalism, then he will simply be permablocked. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning

This is your final warning. The next time you vandalize any page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read what Wikipedia is and is not. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Please look into getting a wikicities account if you want your own wiki, or visit Uncyclopedia for something more along the lines of your activities. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Mohammad Reza Golzar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mohammad Reza Golzar.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Zltako.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zltako.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Allison Mack1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allison Mack1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified Sources

I'm sorry I tagged the images Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg and Image:Allison Mack1.jpg in corectly. I'll tag them with {{fairusein}} and there should be no problem. Ivan Kricancic 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But the source information is still incorrect. You need to say who is the image copyright holder and provide some evidence for that (ex, a link to the copyright holder page containing the image). The links you provided are to sites using the image, where no copyright information is given (these site are likely copyright violatiors themselves). As a rule of thumb, avoid uploading images you find in fansites, wallpaper galeries, and any other site that do not produces it's contents.

Also, the {{fair use in}} tag asks for a detailed fair use rationale. I.e., a textual explanation of why this image follows all the itens of Wikipedia's fair use criteria.

Let me know if you need any help. --Abu Badali 13:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen in the Smallville articles, many of teh images come from "Kryptonsite.com." If I upload new images from that site, will it be ok? Ivan Kricancic 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kryptonsite.com says "Page copyright ©2006 KryptonSite, unless the material is noted as coming from someplace else or being by an individual author." and "PLEASE DO NOT TAKE GRAPHICS, NEWS, SPOILERS, ETC. FROM KRYPTONSITE WITHOUT FIRST ASKING PERMISSION". I think, this mean that some of the images on this site are not really from this site (they come "from someplace") and, and should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless the original source is known. And other images are from this site, but are surely not {{promotional}}, as this site explicty as us not to "TAKE GRAPHICS" from it. --Abu Badali 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For some tv-series images, the best choice are screenshots (use just a few of them, only when needed for explaining something) or promotional photos from the official site, when availabe (make sure they are really promotional. Try reading the "Terms of Use" section). --Abu Badali 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've just emailed Kryptonsite asking for permission on the use of images from their site, and they said it would be fine. I hope that clears things up. Thank you for your assistance in this matter; it was greatly appreciated that you showed me how to properly upload images. Ivan Kricancic 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this permission is only valid for images Kryptonsite owns the copyright. For images that come "from someplace", Kryptonsite should not even be marked as the source. --Abu Badali 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll keep that in mind. Again, thanks.Ivan Kricancic 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For instance, based on their warning that "Smallville and its characters are copyright ©2006 Warner Bros. & DC Comics", I would say that images from Smallville characters (like Image:Allison_Mack1.jpg) are not included in this permission. --Abu Badali 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, those seem to be promotional images of the actors/actresses, so it should be considered fair use.Ivan Kricancic 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to be sure of that before using the {{promotional}} tag. Some images like these are not intended for wide distribution. They may, for instance, be exclusivelly licensed for some specific magazine publisher. We can't say for sure that an image is promotional (in the Wikipedia sence of promotional) unless we have evidence it comes from a press kit or similar source. --Abu Badali 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The images are fair use for the purposes of displaying the items in question

With a propper source, and a good fair use rationale, you can claim {{fair use in}}. --Abu Badali 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They are from a proper source and they do have a rationale. I don't see why you feel the need to go on a one man killing spree of all fair use images on wikipedia. The images con form to all conditions of the fair use tag so they should not be deleted.

A fan-site reusing the image is not a proper source. --Abu Badali 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed you've had some conflicts about images before. You are not the highest authority on everything, so don't pretend to be. Kryptonsite is a proper source; besides that, it is a promotional site. Furthermore, for the fair use tag, I have written a rationale on each image page. These images are fair use and they should stay. If you have a problem with them, which you shouldn't, then upload some images that you believe are proper.

I'm not pretending to be the highest authority. I'm just explaining my understanding of the fair use policy, image use policy and the {{promotional}} tag. And I didn't believe my opinion is more important than yours (I wouldn't be discussing with you, if I did) If we can't reach an agreement, we can ask for third part opinions. We should not let this polite disscussion wreck into accusations. --Abu Badali 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit uncivil earlier (I was writing at 3.00 in the morning). Anyway, I consulted some other wikipedians and they think the images should stay and that they have a good rationale for fair use. I hope this ends the matterIvan Kricancic 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. you were not uncivil at all. You're calm and I see you only intend to improve Wikipedia. What others Wikipedians have consulted? I'm interested in their opinions about the rationale. But regardless of that, I have raised a question on the discussion page of Wikipedia:Fair use about the validity of a fan pages as a source. I believe they agreed that a fansite using the image is not a valid source. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion. Also, I would advice you to remove the claim that "Kryptonsite" "owns" the copyright for those images, as they state they don't. Let me know if you need any other help dealing with this images. Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Kricancic, did you had the time to take a look at the thread about the validity of a fan pages as a source I told you about? Let me know if you're having any difficult in reverting the "Kryptonsite"'s images to the no source version. Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• de-indent These images do not qualify under fair use. It's been stated that since these images come from a fansite, that they are therefore promotional photographs. This is incorrect. A photograph must be explicitly released by the copyright holder as part of a promotional package (say, a press kit) in order for it to be used under fair use as a promotional photograph. Their appearance on a fansite most decidedly does not count as being released for promotional purposes.
• Further, it should be understood that photographs used with permission on Wikipedia do not satisfy our licensing agreements. It used to be the case that images were allowed here if the copyright holder gave permission to have the image used on Wikipedia. This is no longer the case, and has not been the case for more than a year. See {{permission}}. Also note that Kryptonsite does not hold copyright to these images and therefore can not release rights to the image in any respect. As such, we must default to Warner Brothers' copyright statement which can be found here.
• A case could be made that the poster images found here could be used under promotional clauses of fair use. But, it should be understood that the {{promotional}} tag is overused and misunderstood, and has a considerably more restrictive meaning than most appliers believe it to have.
• As it stands, the images should be deleted. I'm sorry. --Durin 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The person who says they own them, gave permission for Wikipedia to use them. There is no proof Warner Brothers owns them, they could have been created by the actor, their management, done specifically for the fan site, etc. So calling someone a liar serves no point, since there really is no proof they are. --NuclearUmpf 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image:Allison Mack1.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] IFD

Please note that IFD is like any other discussion, and that by removing the tags from images you have uploaded is considered disruption. Ryūlóng 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ivan, Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg is currently listed Wikipedia:Images for deletion. While that discussion is ongoing, you must not remove the notification template, {{ifd}}, from the image description page. If you'd like to comment on the situation, you should do so at WP:IFD. ×Meegs 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe those images are fair use? If so, can you help defend them because I can't do it on my own. Ivan Kricancic 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As Carnildo pointed-out on your WP:ANI post, no, these images of the actors do not seem to meet item #1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Beyond that, like Abu Badali, it's also not clear to me that this kryptonite.com is the copyright holder of the photographs (I have not investigated, though). A third issue — it's not central here, but you should be aware of it— is that we can not use images "by permission". All images on Wikipedia must either have been released under a free license or be used under a claim of fair use consistent with all points of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. When you contact copyright holders, be sure to follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Regards ×Meegs 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The person who says they own them, gave permission for Wikipedia to use them. There is no proof Warner Brothers owns them, they could have been created by the actor, their management, done specifically for the fan site, etc. So calling someone a liar serves no point, since there really is no proof they are. --NuclearUmpf 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Dear Ivan, thanks for your message. I'm afraid I gave up long ago trying to understand photo copyright issues at Wikipedia. These days I do not upload any images except (a) my own photos and maps and (b) Australian images which were published at least 50 years ago, which I know are out of copyright. I have no understanding of "fair use" at all. I will pass your enquiry on to User:Rebecca, who is both Australian and awesomely knowledgable about Wikipedia and all its rules. She is also an Admin and will protect you if you are being unfairly treated. Cheers. Adam 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PS You cannot say you support Hamas if you are an ALP member. Hamas is a terrorist organisation which is banned in Australia, and we (Labor) supported banning it. We do not support political violence of any kind, and certainly not suicide bombing etc. I have every sympathy with the Palestinians, but organisations like Hamas will not help get them out of their present mess. Adam 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will make many friends supporting the Ustaše either. Adam 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I got Adam's message and had a look at the situation. I'm not an expert on things fair use, and I try to stay away from them, but from my understanding, I think Durin's comment above accurately explains the situation. We've always had severe problems with finding usable images for articles, and I'm afraid this situation is no difference. Rebecca 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Zltako.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zltako.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Mohammad Reza Golzar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mohammad Reza Golzar.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Rale Rasic.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rale Rasic.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mohammad Reza Golzar.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image:Zltako.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] re: You know it's true

The only reason you tagged those three images for deletion was because I kept fighting your stupid thoughts on why you think those other images aren't fair use!! You only do things like this to make youself feel big, to frustrate otehres, to get your edit count up, to suck up to administrators so you can become one and becuase you have no life! Seriously, I'm just gonna not bother fighting these deletions anymore (so just get someone to delete them now, as I'm not gonna argue) because i actually have a life besides Wikipedia, and I know there is always going to be dickhead like you who have nothing betetr to do than revert the hard work of others! You know it's true. Go fuck yourself!! P.S - I bet you'll go cry to an amin about this "uncivility"! You are a pussy with no life! - Ivan Kricancic 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User_talk:Abu_badali#You_know_it.27s_true: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Abu Badali 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with Abu Badali. The remarks above by Ivan are entirely inappropriate. --Durin 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Help comment

Regarding your comment on my talk page: The images for deletion process is the best way I am aware of to attract knowedgable contributors that I know of. The concern that the images may not be fair use seems to be a valid one, if subtle. If you are having trouble navigating Wikipedia policy, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. It may, however, be that lacking indication that the photos were released as publicity photos (as opposed to images from a magazine shoot done for advertising, or something similar), the images do violate policy and should deleted. I don't know the details of policy well enough to say one way or the other. Thanks for the note; I will try to keep an eye on the page, but feel free to contact me again if there is something I can do. --TeaDrinker 01:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tom Welling.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Welling.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your gfdl-self claims

Ivan, are you really tha author if the images you tag as {{gfdl-self}}? I'm concerned because in your user page you claim to be 17 years old, but also, some of the images you uploaded look decades older (1, 2, 3). To take one example, Image:SPCCREST.jpg Image:Sfxshamrockglasswindow.jpg is a document dated June 20th 1962. --Abu Badali 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes I did

Yes, the images that I tagged as created by myself were created by myself. - Ivan Kricancic 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete the fair use images I uploaded, fair enough, but leave the images that I created myself alone. I created them myself and I release them into the public domain. - Ivan Kricancic 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Were you around in 1962 to create this document? And why did you state that "St Francis Xavier school owns this image" and "They have given me permission to use this and other of their images on Wikipedia" when uploading some of the images? Are you sure you fully understand what the {{gfdl-self}} is meant to be used? --Abu Badali 12:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was not created in 1962! I created this image. And as for the part where it says "I'm using that picture with permission" - that was for a different image I was going to upload, but then I instead created an image myself so I would not have to go through a big argument again. As it stands, I created those images. Ivan Kricancic 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that taking a non-creative picture of another picture doesn't give you the image's copyright. I'm really more concerned about images Image:Sfxycwncgm.jpg, Image:Sfxchurch.jpg and Image:Sfxchurchded.jpg. There's a chance that Image:Sfxshamrockglasswindow.jpg is inneligible for copyright, but I would ask at Wikipedia_talk:Fair use first. And if you at least give propper source information for the other ones, someone could even findout that they copyright have expired. But by keeping using obiously wrong {{gfdl-self}}'s claims, you compromise all your uploads, as you're make it even harder to believe your source/copyright claims. --Abu Badali 12:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The tags are not wrong. And I did not just take a picture of a picture. Stop harrassing me. If you are angry that I argued with you over fair use, fine, but these images were in fact created by me!!

I'm not angry, thanks for caring. And I'm not you. As I stated, I'm just a little bit concerned.

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. --Abu Badali 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:SPCCREST.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SPCCREST.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing messages from talk page

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Abu Badali 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove legitimate messages from my talk page; I removed harrassing messages from you, Abu badali. You continue to harrass me even though I have asked you to stop. I'll ask again; leave me alone, Abu badali and stop harrassing me! - Ivan Kricancic 06:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restatement of issues

Ivan, I am sorry that you feel Abu Badali is harassing you, but there are some legitimate issues raised above that need to be addressed. Note that he could have immediately sought the images' deletion, but instead was trying to work with you to save them. If you will cooperate briefly, then we can settle these issues and you can both go your own ways. Let me try to restate the questions:

1. Image:Sfxshamrockglasswindow.jpg is a document created in the 1960. A faithful digitization has the same copyright as the original. Since you are not the owner, we will need to demonstrate that the document is in the public domain (or possibly make a fair use claim) for it to remain.
2. You have applied the {{gfdl-self}} tag to Image:Sfxycwncgm.jpg, Image:Sfxchurchded.jpg, and Image:Sfxchurch.jpg, indicating that you are the photographer and copyright holder of the images (and say that these upload summaries were a mistake). Could you please provide more info about the photos on their image description pages? Two useful pieces of info would be the approximate date that they were taken and the reason for their poor condition (e.g. were they scanned from a paper publication?).

Regards ×Meegs 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I created these images. Yes they are low quality, but that is because I took the pictures using an old non-digital camera, so I had to scan them in. Secondly, the document was created in the 60's; I do not claim to own the copyright to the document, but I do own the copyright to the image, as I created the image; when someone takes a picture of a book, actor or building, they don't own the copyright to the book, actor or building, but they do own the images copyright. I created these images, and I released them into the public domain. If you wish to harrass me over fair use images, fine, but I created these images myself so there is no problem. Please do not call me a liar again. - Ivan Kricancic 08:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has called you a liar, and whether you realize it or not, we are trying to help you. I do suggest that you add as much information as you can to those three images' description pages, as other people will likely raise the same questions in the future (when you may not be available to answer them). About the document, you are incorrect: faithfully reproducing a two dimensional work does nothing to the original's copyright protection, just photocopyring the contents of a magazine or taping a movie on your VCR does not enable you to sell copies. One of many cases reinforcing this is Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. ×Meegs 09:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We can continue this conversation here, if needed. You do not need to copy your replies to my talk page. ×Meegs 09:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You can find more information about derivative works on Wikipedia Commons [1]

By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so.

--NuclearUmpf 13:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What I did to gain access to this image, was I actually left the house, went and talked my priest who owns the document, and then explained to him about the use of the image. He said it was ok with him to use a picture of the document, and then he went on to say that most Church publications aren't copyrighted anyway. - Ivan Kricancic 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This document was not created by the church or your priest, however. I have now listed this image at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. You can comment on the matter there; you need not leave any more rude messages on my talk page. ×Meegs 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This document is not copyrighted; invoices/reciepts are not copyrighted. The priest who owns the document also allowed the free distribution of an image of this non-copyrighted document. There is no argument about it - this image should not be deleted. Besides, you are the one being rude, not me. - Ivan Kricancic 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing legitimate messages

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Abu Badali 09:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't believe this. There is no Wikipedia policy I am aware of that prevents you from doing whatever you want to your user page or your User talk page (except attacking other people). Feel free to remove anything you want anytime you want from your user space. The pages in Wikipedia are self-archiving and if you archive you do not have to provide a link to anything. I agree with Abu that you should not vandalize legitimate warnings, but I'm not sure it is a blockable offense. If this policy exists, have Abu Badali provide a link to it. -Nv8200p talk 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

You may want to know that Wikipedia has a policy of No personal attacks. You should not act like if you're proud your uncivil acts towards members of the community. Take good care, --Abu Badali 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I kne that policy before I became a registed user. And I'm not acting like I'm proud. It's just, you were telling me not to delete things from my userpage, so it's only fair that you do the same. Besides that, you were the only person who I acted uncivil towards, and that was after your repeated harrassment and after you repeatedly tried to stamp yourself out to be the highest authority on images. - Ivan Kricancic 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

That was just a suggestion. I would wait a few days and see how the critics respond. If there seems to be no issue, then you can change the tag and note the change on the PUI page, but leave the PUI tag on the image. The Admin will remove it or delete the image based on his judgement. -Nv8200p talk 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for image deletion

To answer your question here, to ask for the removal of an image you uploaded (and are the solely contributor), just place {{db-author}} on the image description page. Let me know if you run into any problems. --Abu Badali 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Abu Badali 06:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Jone III

That was a good compromise on moving the image out of the infobox. Should we do that to the Allison Mack article? - King Ivan 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There's already one image out of the infobox illustrating Allison Mack as Chloe Sullivan on Smallville. We should use as few unfree images as possible. --Abu Badali 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I think this new one is better, as the other one has a WB watermark on it. I'm gonna go ahead and change the pic, ok. Thanks. - King Ivan 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you make the compromise to no longer missuse or overuse the unfree images, I will withdraw the ifd.

Also, as someone familiar to this tv series, could you point which of the 3 images used to illustrate the character Chloe Sullivan you think is the best, put it in the article's infobox, and nominate the other ones for deletion? Let me know if you need any help. --Abu Badali 07:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realism

You might like to notice that the link links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realist#Politics_and_international_relations; not simply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realist, because I wanted to link to the subsection about politics, not the article in general which is mostly about arts and philosophy. Regardless, I have decided to change it. --rob.mck. 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As if I can be bothered editing articles. --rob.mck. 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, get on MSN to discuss this further. --rob.mck. 08:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subjects

and think twice before writing subject. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about!? You're clearly insane. - King Ivan 09:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing uncicli about it. I was making an observation. Besides, judging by your talk page, you shouldn't be someone who is directing others to WP:CIVIL, as you have offended more times than most. - King Ivan 09:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Welling & Kristin Kreuk

Hello Abu. You should keep a watch on the articles Tom Welling & Kristin Kreuk because people keep putting on non free images from dubious sources on those articles, and gettign rid of the single screenshot that was agreed on. Look at this example of one of the images; it states that the image is in teh public domain because the author has been dead for 100 years, but Welling has not even been alive for 30 years. i thought I'd report this to you because you are good with images. Thanks! - King Ivan 08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, Jenalexia and especially Alphabetagamnma have been the main offenders. I hope you can help. Thanks! - King Ivan 09:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. And don't be shy to remove these images yourself whenever you see them. And of course, don'tbe shy to ask me for help whenever you need. Best regards, --Abu Badali 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for a quick response. I don't usually tag images for deletion, because I'm not sure of the propper tags and procedures. Anyway, on a different topic, I don't think I've done this yet, but I feel I should: Abu, I wholeheartedly apologise for my ridiculous personal attack on you a few weeks ago. It was immature, wrong, untrue, detrimental to Wikiepdia and offensive. I now realise that you are only helping Wikiepdia, and I hope you keep up the good work! Again, I apologise for past grievances, and I hope you can accpet my apology. - King Ivan 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Never lost my faith on you :) --Abu Badali 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microphone

Ivan do you have a microphone for the computer? If so talk to me on MSN. --rob.mck. 07:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defcon (game)

I need to give you Defcon so we can play it.

It is awesome. --rob.mck. 07:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSN

That happened to me, I restarted and it worked. --rob.mck. 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)