User talk:Synthe/Archive 2

If you have uploaded other fair use 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.

I changed the tag on the image because it is clearly a derivative work of

Why does it matter? {{Subst:unsigned|Synthe|19:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)} Fuck you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language, Synthe. --Yamla 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like what i said then let me make it into a more proper statement if you wish.Otherwise back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vietdemonstratorflower.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will 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. --Durin 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it i don't give a shit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours for profanity. Profanity is not welcome here. Please see

You were warned, now you have been blocked. As this is your third block, this one is for seven days. --Yamla 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

Stop adding false info. --Golbez 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What false info

Yamla look you need to stop policing my account,But the truth was the image wasn't copyrighted or a logo or a fairuse.And i don't see why you have a fuss about it.

The image must be fair-use in order for you to use it. That's the whole problem. And you don't seem to have a good understanding of copyright law. Basically all images are copyrighted and you need special permission in order to use them. You claimed (if I remember correctly) that the image we are discussing was from a promotional kit which was clearly false. You also provided no other evidence that you had any rights to use this image. I'm willing to help you understand copyright and fair use, but you must stop violating these policies! --Yamla 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, by the way, is that your copyright violations may lead to the entire Wikipedia project being shut down! I'm sure neither of us want this, that's why Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yamla 20:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not justify the reason for my block,although i lied about the status of the image the image was not copyrighted which means you should delete the image and go back before the block,so we can forget about this.

Well, if you can provide evidence that the image in question was released to the public domain, I will remove the block. I can help you determine what is required to prove the image is in the public domain. No more lying, though. --Yamla 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image wasn't released into the public domain however it was not copyrighted but submitted into a site called www.ytmnd.com

See, that's my point. As I have already mentioned, almost all works are automatically copyrighted. If I take a picture and upload it to a web site, that picture is automatically protected by copyright. If I write a poem, that poem is automatically protected. If I make an animated gif, that picture is automatically covered by copyright law. Unless you can show that this particular image is not covered by copyright law (for example, it was created prior to 1923 or it is otherwise not eligible for copyright protection), the assumption is that it is covered. --Yamla 20:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.ytmnd.com/info/terms.htm I don't know if the part were it says copyrighted means that no images are no copyright laws

No, that specifically says that you must not use YTMND to violate copyright. It is not meant to imply that copyright does not apply to YTMND. --Yamla 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But whats the status if the image was not copyrighted but not released into the public,you have not answered my question

I can choose to release an image (or any work) to the public domain. This means that you are free to do whatever you want with it, including making money off of it without reimbursing me. Another possibility is that I could be in the armed forces and take a picture. That picture would likely be automatically public domain even if I don't release it, because members of the armed forces (in the U.S.) can't copyright stuff (in some situations, at least). This doesn't give you the full story on the armed forces, mind you, I'm just using it as an example. But let's go back to the image example. Let's say I take an image and then do not release it. That image is automatically protected by copyright laws without me doing anything. I don't have to apply for copyright protection. Thus, your question as initially stated really doesn't make sense. Either the work is protected by copyright or it is public domain. By default, you have to assume that everything is protected by copyright, even if it is never released. Even if it is uploaded to the YTMND website. Now, with copyright, I may release it to you under a specific license. It's still protected by copyright but I may, for example, say that you are allowed to enjoy my work freely so long as nobody makes any money. Now we are into the realm of licensing. The important thing to note is that basically all works are automatically copyrighted. You don't have to do anything special apart from produce the work in question in order for copyright to apply. --Yamla 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do i do? wait out your 7 day sentence? after that you've will just find another reason to block me AGAIN

I'll unblock you now if you promise not to lie any more on Wikipedia, if you promise not to upload any more copyrighted images, and if you promise not to use profanity here (though I think you only did that twice). Your blocks have been legitimate; chronic copyright violation, swearing, and fraudulently altering other people's signed comments. This behaviour must stop. It is unacceptable and this is why you've been blocked. I am still not at all sure you have a decent understanding of copyright, mind you, and would suggest perhaps you just don't upload any images. Or you ask an admin before uploading the image whether it is safe to do so. --Yamla 21:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if this time i make one MYSELF using photoshop,after that you will make another useless fair use and copyright arugement.

If you make an image from scratch in Photoshop and upload it, that would be fine provided you identified yourself as the creator of the work. If on the other hand, you took a picture of Britney Spears and modified it (such as, for example, changing the sky from blue to pink), you would not own the copyright on the image. Or, more accurately, both you and the original author would own the copyright but that means you could not upload it here. This would be the case even for fairly substantial modifications. --Yamla 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is britney spears?

You can read the article on Britney Spears if you like but the point holds regardless of who is in the picture. If you didn't take the original picture (or create the original work), you cannot simply modify it and then upload it. You must have created the work from scratch in order to have clear copyright, in order for it to be safe to upload here. --Yamla 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i made a image now make a fairuse/copyright arugement http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/7058/patriot7ct.gif Ok made this arugement"the US flag is copyrighted by the United states of america" have you made a comment?I'm still waiting.

I believe flags themselves are not covered by copyright but am not sure. In any case, the use of the flag in this image seems reasonable. Please note: I can only see the first frame if this is meant to be animated, so my comments don't apply past that. If you created EVERY SINGLE PIXEL YOURSELF, this image would be entirely copyright by you. If you borrowed the flag from someone else, though, then they would own the copyright to the image. That is, the flag itself is public domain (I think, fair-use if not), but the specific image is copyright to whoever created it. The copyright is covering the specific image itself, though, not the flag. So, in other words, if you created every pixel of this image yourself, you own the copyright. If you took the flag and/or the smiley from a clip-art library or from someone else, though, then you are not the sole owner of the copyright and you cannot upload it to the Wikipedia. --Yamla 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it in paint...what? its copyrighted by the person that created it?go include a copyright violation snice its a violation of the people who made it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. But if you created every pixel yourself, you own the copyright outright. --Yamla 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i upload it you will put something like..... "This image is a violation of the creator Harvey Ball That means you will just annoy me again with the useless copyright/fairuse arugement

I wouldn't, but now you are starting to see why copyright is such a nasty area of law to get right. Virtually no images you find on the web are safe to use and even when creating your own work, you have to be careful. --Yamla 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the point is that you will make it a copyright violation anyway,so theres no use for me to upload images i created myself.

No, I have explicitly said I would not consider that particular image to be a violation of copyright. Other people may, I can't speak for everyone. You'd at least have a decent argument in this case, though, rather than when you upload other people's copyrighted images. Copyright is hard to understand and it is hard to avoid violations. Still, we must avoid them. --Yamla 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the part where you say you will unblock me,besides you blocked me for 3 times in the same week.

You don't have to believe it. You can either sit out the seven day block or you can promise no more lying, swearing, copyright violations, and vandalism like fraudulently altering other people's comments. I'd look pretty foolish not to unblock you if you promised that. Of course, if you promise and then start doing that sort of thing again, you'll be blocked again, by me or another admin. Your blocks are entirely your fault. But I have hopes that you really will stop this sort of thing and will become a productive and highly-respected editor here on Wikipedia. Already, a good number of your edits have been quite useful. --Yamla 21:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah just unblock me BUT IF I CREATE MY OWN MY OWN MY OWN image you CAN NOT Block me.

I'm sorry, I'm only willing to unblock you if you promise not to lie, swear, commit copyright violations, or vandalism (on Wikipedia). If you are acting in good faith, I'll unblock you right away. And no, I would not block you for creating your own image, only if you modified an existing image and claimed you created it. Of course, you'd still need the correct license, but that shouldn't be hard. --Yamla 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....... I don't need some license for my OWN image.

No, but you need to inform Wikipedia that you created it by noting that fact appropriately. Note that by uploading the image, you will be licensing it under the terms of the GFDL. --Yamla 22:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me however i won't use the GFDL when uploading my images.

You still haven't made any sort of promise. And all your uploads (text, images) are licensed under the GFDL. You have no choice about this. See

WP:OWN. --Yamla 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been unblocked. --Yamla 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lie i'm still blocked.So it was a lie eh?

You shouldn't be, the block log for you clearly shows you were unblocked at 2006-05-19 16:24:59 (mountain daylight). However, it is entirely possible that your IP address is still blocked. To unblock that, I'll need to know what your IP address is. I'm seeing if I can determine this. If you know what it is, let me know and I'll unblock that as well. Try now, I unblocked what I think was the autoblock. --Yamla 22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the GFDL, by the way, is to allow other people to edit articles you have also edited. Otherwise, if you made a correction to United States, nobody else could then change what you had written. Similarly, this allows people to edit images you have uploaded if necessary. --Yamla 22:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand theres a GFDL for images but the point of GFDL is articles...

Well, it has a lot more point for articles, you are right. But imagine if you uploaded a wonderful new logo for Wikipedia. It's great, Wikipedia uses it. Then six months down the line, someone else figures the logo would be even more perfect if it had just one little change. The GFDL allows this user to make that change. Otherwise, he'd have to start from scratch and couldn't reuse your image. --Yamla 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if i remove the GFDL from images i just uploaded what are you going to do?

You have already licensed them under the GFDL. All your Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL. You cannot unlicense them. However, if you no longer wish a specific image to be licensed under the GFDL, please let me or another admin know and we can delete the image. Wikipedia is under no obligation to do this, however. --Yamla 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Regarding edits made during

In this case, Synthe, you seem to have fallen prey to Wikipedia's rule against

original research. You can't just assert that most people on the Internet oppose illegal immigration, you have to link to a study or paper that shows this. It's probably true but information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. --Yamla 17:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a new special article on Inhofe Amendment. It seems to me biased supporting English-only and it makes to articles whcih critisize this point og view. It also lacks accurancy by not stating that an oppsite amendement was voted shortly after. I do not know enough about the categorization and the articles of the english wikipedia and I do not also have enough local knoledge to fix it , so I am asking you to take a look.--Michkalas 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

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. 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. 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Although i recived permission to use the image,i'm not sure that its released into the public domain.

Probably not. For both

talk) 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading

but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2006

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people known as father or mother of something

Hi Synthe,

Jesus || Christianity

Please provide at least one citation per the "

Adding entries to this list" for the above – thanks. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edit to

Moofy

Your recent edit to

Tawkerbot2 00:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

?m sorry about the reverts.. I'm tsting something it shouldn't happen anymore. -- Drini 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Savemason.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Savemason.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. 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qassam and Hostage

[1] According to this it was for both reasons. Rangeley 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion

Please avoid using abusive

edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. Kafziel 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Image Tagging for Image:Super Saiyan Trunks DBGT.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Super Saiyan Trunks DBGT.PNG. 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. 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:VegetaJrDBGTSSJ.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:VegetaJrDBGTSSJ.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 an argument 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 {{

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. Note that any 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. Yamla 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are screenshots i clipped out are of a episode or a movie

Well, please don't do that again. You already know you are not to upload an image without specifying the source and the copyright holder. --Yamla 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:GokuJrDBGTSSJ1.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:GokuJrDBGTSSJ1.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 an argument 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 {{

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. Note that any 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. Yamla 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are screenshots i clipped out are of a episode or a movie

Unspecified source for Image:DBGTGokuGrandfather.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DBGTGokuGrandfather.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 an argument 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 {{

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. Note that any 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. Yamla 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are screenshots i clipped out are of a episode or a movie

Unspecified source for Image:DBGTBulma.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DBGTBulma.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 an argument 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 {{

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. Note that any 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. Yamla 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are screenshots i clipped out are of a episode or a movie

License tagging for Image:BulmaDBGT.PNG

Thanks for uploading

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:

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

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. 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)