Miamitom
Content removed for privacy reasons.
Do not restore any previous content.
This is my talk page and I ask that my privacy be respected.
THIS IS THE REASON I WILL NO LONGER CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPEDIA.
I DID NOT RELEASE MY IMAGE SO THAT YOU ASSHOLES CAN REMOVE MY WATERMARK. REMOVING WATERMARKS IS THE SAME AS STEALING SONG LYRICS AND TAKING THE AUTHOR'S NAME OFF THE LYRICS.
THE WATERMARKED IMAGE REMAINS OR I WILL REVOKE LICENSING.
REMOVE YOUR TRIMMED VERSION OR I WILL REVOKE MY LICENSE.
Watermarking
editALL IMAGES WITH MY NAME ON THEM AND LICENSED UNDER WIKIPEDIA OR WIKIMEDIA ON WIKIPEDIA ARE HEREBY REVOKED.
ALL LICENSING CEASES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 27, 2013.
IF YOU ARE USING ANY OF MY IMAGES ON YOUR WEBSITE, ON YOUR AIRPORT VAN OR IN ANY REPRODUCTION WHATSOEVER, THE LICENSE IS REVOKED,
Due to the 2-faced nature of Wikipedia, users are encouraged to freely use images, and "encouraged" to give proper attribution according the license provided. Due to the illiterate, ignorant nature of most people on this planet who have been encouraged to steal intellectual property, the honor system of providing proper attributions is a FARCE.
DO NOT LITTER MY TALK PAGE WITH RETORTS, EXPLANATIONS, POLICY QUOTES, and useless drivel from some "consensus" provided by ignoramuses who have zero appreciation for intellectual property rights.
DO NOT WHINE ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIKIPEDIA AND DESPERATION OF THE SITE GOING AWAY. I HOPE IT DOES.
I WILL NO LONGER CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE OF THE SHODDY AND NON-EXISTENT ENFORCEMENT OF ANY KIND OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE SITE'S OVERALL POLICY OF ENCOURAGING THE USE OF IMAGES FOR FREE, AND EXPECTING THEM TO BE UNWATERMARKED. YOU WANT FREE? THEN IT COMES WITH A WATERMARK. YOU WANT AN UNMARKED IMAGE - CONTACT ME BY EMAIL OR USE THE F*****ING PHONE.
STOP THE IDIOCY TODAY. Miamitom (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Miamitom (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You released your images under a free license and you can't revoke it. This license includes the permission to modify these images (cropping, removing the watermark, etc). If someone uses your images without complying to the license (which includes the requirement to attribute/name the author or to use a specific creditline like name + weblink) then your are free to sue them over this license compliance failure. --Denniss (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Image source problem with File:Biscayne-sign-for-wikipedia-by-toms-schaefer.jpg
edit
Thank you for uploading File:Biscayne-sign-for-wikipedia-by-toms-schaefer.jpg.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
66.177.246.122 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
YAY! DELETE IT!
Can't believe you're just now getting around to a photo I uploaded in 2006.
