Raguzz
Welcome!
edit
Welcome!
Hello, Raguzz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Bobby Fischer, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.
Did you know that ...
- ...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
- ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
- ...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
- ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
- ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process – at least until you get the hang of things?
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Manual of Style
Speedy deletion nomination of File:OldBobbyFischer.jpg
edit
A tag has been placed on File:OldBobbyFischer.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly So about that picture of Bobby Fischer, I got my source wrong about where the picture originated from, my bad for that, the source of the image seemed to come from this site:https://en.chessbase.com/post/bobby-fischer-latest-news-and-pictures along with other pictures of Fischer. So I emailed the website and they said that they do not know the source of the image and said that it's all over the internet, I would show you the Email but I don't know how. Anyways can I do anything about it now? Raguzz (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Being used all over the Internet is not the same as being free from copyright protection. Since the photo was taken after March 1, 1989, it's considered to be automically protected under US copyright law, which matters because that's where the English Wikipedia servers hosting the file are located. The copyright on a photo is almost always held by the person who takes the photo. If you can figure who that person is and get them to email their consent to WP:VRT, then the file can be restored; otherwise, you're going to need to somehow demonstrate the file is within the public domain for some reason. For reference, photos with an unknown author but with a known publication date are eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law for 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter. So, even if you don't know exactly when the photo was taken, where it was taken and who took it, the publication date under US copyright would be considered to be the date it started appearing online; this would make it not eligible for PD status until almost the year 2100 at the earliest. There was another problem with the photo in that you uploaded it without a file copyright license, which means it was eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F4. Without knowing the provenance of the photo, figuring out which copyright license to use is nearly impossible to do for Wikipedia purposes unless you can find the photo already posted somewhere online prior to it being posted anywhere else, and that instance of first publication clearly states the file has been released under a free license acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yea it would seem like too much effort to try and get that specific image since the Chess base website doesn't even know the creator.
- Anyways if you somehow know how I can get an a copyright free image under US law of an older Bobby Fischer that would be great, It would add to the article a lot due to his drastic change in appearance.
- Cheers. Raguzz (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The only thing I can suggest is to hope that someone took an image of him from that period of his life and then released it under a free license acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. If you find one that's not, you can try WP:PERMISSION since some editors have had success in obtaining a free image that way. There are plenty of free images of a younger Fischer available which means it's going to be quite hard (at least in my opinion) to justify a non-free one of an older Fischer just because he looks old. The appearance of most person's changes as they age, sometimes quite a lot, and that's not in and of itself usually considered a sufficient justification for non-free use. It's not like he underwent some sort of major plastic surgery so that he looks absolutely nothing like he did at a younger age; in other words, you can still tell its him from looking at various photos. So, you'd have to probably find some significant critical commentary in multiple reliable sources releated to his appearance as "Old Fischer" to come close to justifying the non-free use of any such photo. Others might feel differently and you can try asking about this at WT:NFCC if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Being used all over the Internet is not the same as being free from copyright protection. Since the photo was taken after March 1, 1989, it's considered to be automically protected under US copyright law, which matters because that's where the English Wikipedia servers hosting the file are located. The copyright on a photo is almost always held by the person who takes the photo. If you can figure who that person is and get them to email their consent to WP:VRT, then the file can be restored; otherwise, you're going to need to somehow demonstrate the file is within the public domain for some reason. For reference, photos with an unknown author but with a known publication date are eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law for 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter. So, even if you don't know exactly when the photo was taken, where it was taken and who took it, the publication date under US copyright would be considered to be the date it started appearing online; this would make it not eligible for PD status until almost the year 2100 at the earliest. There was another problem with the photo in that you uploaded it without a file copyright license, which means it was eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F4. Without knowing the provenance of the photo, figuring out which copyright license to use is nearly impossible to do for Wikipedia purposes unless you can find the photo already posted somewhere online prior to it being posted anywhere else, and that instance of first publication clearly states the file has been released under a free license acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia like you did here [1]. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mrdabalina (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I explained the purpose of my edits, I understand if you are unhappy with them but how is it vandalism Raguzz (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your last edit summary was pointless "minor aspects" and "small section" these are your opinions and no source backs you up on this you just do not like whats being said and I have informed an administrator who edits pages on British demographics to take a look. You can present your arguments and gain consensus you cant use misleading edit summary's to mass delete information which you dislike. Mrdabalina (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well you're the one assuming that I'm removing these sections only because I don't like them, plus it's your opinion that my edit's are "pointless" and you use that to revert them. But sure, the ambassador could look into it Raguzz (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- By the way who is the ambassador you've asked to look into? Raguzz (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am assuming nothing I only see whats apparent which are your opinions in the edit summary and lack of consensus for long standing and very well sourced information please do read my comment correctly I stated its your edit summary and reasoning which are nonsensical and misleading you are making things up along the way to unjustly deleting information which you disagree with. Secondly you are neither an ambassador or an authority the admin is not one either they have at times edited community related articles the important thing is we need a neutral party to review your edits which in my view are just point of view pushing attempts. I am not keen on arguing or edit warring so assume good faith. Mrdabalina (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your last edit summary was pointless "minor aspects" and "small section" these are your opinions and no source backs you up on this you just do not like whats being said and I have informed an administrator who edits pages on British demographics to take a look. You can present your arguments and gain consensus you cant use misleading edit summary's to mass delete information which you dislike. Mrdabalina (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)