Waukegan

'Welcome!' (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Waukegan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.  

We're so glad you're here! Luksuh 05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Help request

{{helpme}}

Thank you for the kind welcome. I'm rather new to this and have been doing a lot of 'monkey see monkey do'.

I'm rather puzzled about where you get images, I found the things a bit confusing. Is there a list of things you have available (such as film posters) or do you send things in yourself?

I'm rather worried about rights to things, don't want you or I to be in trouble. Let's say I've a European pressbook from an obscure 1968 film I would like to send in to illustrate an article, do I (or have someone else) scan the image and send it in hoping it's in the public domain or do you have some list of things someone can select from?

Hope to hear from you. Here's other questions, how do I get a redirect. For example I would like the phrase 'Shanghai International Police' to go straight to the 'Shanghai Municpal Police' thing but I suppose pranksters have been doing meaningless redirections so you may have something to do to approve it.

I'm curious about footnotes for references, do I have to have the author or publishing house's permission?

Thank you

Waukegan (I'm in Sydney)

Hi there! Hopefully I can provide some answers to your questions. If I leave anything unclear, feel free to replace {{tnull|helpme}} with {{helpme}} and another helper will come to assist. Images on Wikipedia are uploaded by users. We have rather strict image policies, though, to ensure that we do not infringe on any copyrights. Images licensed under the GFDL or similar free license, or which are in the public domain can be uploaded at any time and tagged as such. Images that are copyrighted can be uploaded only if they conform to Wikipedia's Non-free content guidelines (also see WP:NFCC). For details on how to upload images and choose which licensing tag to put on the image page, see Wikipedia:Uploading images.

As for redirects, you can create a redirect at any time; there is no process to go through. Simply "create" the article that you want to serve as a redirect and tag it with

#REDIRECT [[ArticleName]]

where ArticleName is the name of the article you want it to redirect to.

Finally, you do not need permission to use a site or published material as a reference. The only thing is that you cannot copy text directly from copyrighted sources. It is not the information contained in the text in a copyrighted website/publication that is copyrighted, it is the text itself.

Again, I hope I've answered everything well. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to use the {{helpme}} template again. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW!!! My head is still swimming. Thanks Nick and all of you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waukegan (talk • contribs) 07:00:07, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

{{helpme}}

STILL CONFUSED AGAIN

Thank you for your help. I'm still rather puzzled by image use.

To be more specific I was looking at Google images especially images of a record album 'Ballad of the Green Berets' that is also featured in your Wikipedia.

Now in the case of an image taken by a photographer or drawn by a recognised artist I can see the logic of contacting the source for permission. However when looking at the Google images several websites have copied the same record album cover. My query is

1)would I have to contact each address of the image and ask their permission to use it? even though they no doubt scanned the image of an album cover

2) If I found the same record album cover (or film poster) and scanned it myself have I violated some copyright (we are talking about album covers or film posters from the 1960's)

3) If I see the same image I would like to use in another Wikipedia article am I allowed to copy it and reuse it in another Wikipedia article?

I know certain motion picture stars have their images copyrighted, but is a poster from outside America considred part of their domain?

Hope I haven't confused you too much.

Thanx

I'm unable to answer all your questions, but I'll try to help:

1. There was once some controversy over a museum/library that took pictures of paintings, and somebody came and used the pictures - the issue was this: We all know that the paintings might be copyrighted (restrictions on reproducing the painting), but what about the copyright of the person that took the image himself/herself? What if you had a painting from 150 years ago that would now be in the public domain, but somebody went to the effort of taking a picture of it? Does that person have any copyrights over their picture of the painting (in this example not the painting itself, but rather the picture)? Well as far as I can recall the courts ruled that since there was no intellectual property in taking the photo or artistic design, I believe they ruled that out. But there's a catch. What I've just told you shows that people that scan in an album cover (generally) can't do anything if you copy his photo. However, the people that designed the album cover themselves are the ones that used artistic design and intellectual property and therefore they are the ones that need to license you to reproduce the image. Therefore, you do not need permission from whoever scanned the album cover in, instead you need permission from the copyright-holders of the album cover. I hope that clears things up.

2. By scanning in something you may be reproducing it so technically it might be a violation of copyright, however, seen as it may be for personal use (in other words you are only reproducing for yourself and only using it yourself and showing it to yourself) there should be no problem. But to reproduce it on the internet, i.e. by scanning it and posting it on the internet is a reproduction of the copyrighted work and therefore there may be some restrictions. Therefore in that case you would need to seek a copyright license to reproduce those film posters/covers on Wikipedia.

3. "images" aren't actually part of any wikipedia article. Instead images get uploaded on their own, and stored separately from the article. In this way, more than one article can use an image. Now, if you do find an image in an article that you want to use, just look at the wiki-sourcecode and you'll see something like this: [[Image:Example.jpg]]. Simply copy that, and paste it in the new article where you want to display this image. Back in the original article, you can even click on the image to see its copyright license. So the answer to your question is yes, you can simply copy an existing image on Wikipedia and use it in another article. however if somebody finds that the image violates any copyright, or has no copyright license, it might be removed.

You might want to look at WP:COPYRIGHT, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Hope this helps. If so, please remove your helpme tag.

Rfwoolf 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rfwoolf, you have helped quite a bit.

Your example on the copy of the painting was spot on.

I knew from the 'old days' that journos (journalists) had something called 'the morgue' where they would get images from. In the case of film stars there didn't seem to be any copyright as they, their agents, and studios would admire the publicity. I heard that back in the mid 60's Sean Connery copied his image to prevent people from putting his picture in about 'James Bond' articles so that's why you have album covers with generic models in dinner jackets with weapons and pretty girls and some of the MPC toys of the 60's have generic type art work. Since then I have heard some dead stars have copyrighted their image, with even a soundtrack CD of a film unable to use any artwork from the film due to that deceased star's company.

I'm wondering if just taking pot luck on the Google images with a letter of good intentions would be OK and if there's any fuss Wikipedia would remove it with just a 'sorry, no rights' but no reprecussion...

It's a silly world we live in but I used to work for a government authority whose legislation was summarised and made simpler in a non government book. If people went to the libraries and photocopied it for their own use no problem whatsover, however once the publishers heard that one of their employees photocopied a page and gave it to an inquiring client they threatened to sue (as the gov't has money and is not going anywhere)

Off the record, I'm going to take a shot at doing all three things. I have emailed one site that features the work of a deceased artist to get an obscure commerical design they did. I have a 1968 Spanish pressbook with a poster I shall get scanned and try putting it on another article, and I shall go to Google images for some film posters for other article.

If any of these things are going to cause trouble please let me know. I've seen so many images and it's pretty tempting to steal things but for all I know some images might have a microscopic dot that blows up to say 'Joe's property' even though Joe had nothing to do with the film or it's artwork (I heard that back in those days most art work posters were unsigned as the artist lost all rights to the material, perhaps why today most film posters are photos (and not as attractive)

Thank you for your prompt and courteous help, forgive me for rabbiting on. I may be paranoid but I feel that there are some people out there (who may have their own literary interests) who are rather jealous of the service you provide.

Hope to hear from you or others in the know,

Thanks again ~~~~; Waukegan 22:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Merrill'smarauders.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Merrill'smarauders.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your prompt and informative reply. The image is meant for the top of the article "Merrill's Marauders (film)". I obtained the image from peterbrowntv.com and asked their permission. I received this reply-

Subject: Re: Request permission to use one of your images in a Wikipedia article sir, or ma'am Sure, use any photo you want for any of your proposed articles. Most of them are out of copyright anyway so it shouldn't be a problem on that front either. Peter and all the other guys who go to the western fan shows sell photos from their TV shows and movies with no problem. If someone felt there was a copyright problem, they'd first ask that it be removed before doing anything else. No one has ever asked me to remove anything. I think you're pretty safe using things that are decades old.

How fun to work on Wikipedia articles.

I hope that helps.

Again, I've some queries. Do I upload the image to the article myself without you checking or do I send it to you for perusal and you put it in?

Sorry to be a pest, but once I'm au fait with things I can make a contribution. Thank you again for your help and patience. Waukegan 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Rednightmare.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rednightmare.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:

• 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. 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, UTC. From what the Peter Brown people say and what you're article on Public Domain says, it sounds to me like Public Domain, so I believe the image tag would be

 ?

Please let me know and Thanks againWaukegan 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Man in grnberet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Man in grnberet.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:

• 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. 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response UTC. I strongly believe the item that I scanned from the cover of a 1967 paperback book is in the public domain

I'm still rather new at this so would appreciate any pointersWaukegan 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:2peterbrown.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:2peterbrown.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:2peterbrown.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:2peterbrown.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'm currently checking things with www.peterbrown.tv. and will be in touch with their reply.

As quoted above you can see they've given permission for the use of their images. I certainly have no intention of violating copyright or of making profit. I'm certain that it's tempting for many people to find all sorts of images on the net and use them, even items for sale by ebay or companies.

I must admit I'm surprised there hasn't been an image on before. I noticed on some of the comments when editing the piece that someone had written 'He is boring'. Is it possible the person who had requested the image be removed just doesn't like Mr Brown? I guess the problem with anyone being able to edit is that you have the eqivilent of the pre-schooler with a box of crayons drawing in books, ruining them for everyone else.

Wikipedia has made our local Aussie news as they found out that various Government departments removed idiotic comments and silly opinions from factual articles, so now there will be a crackdown on Gov't departments (or the people in them) editing things. In the public service it's always emphasised how you can't violate privacy by providing information to others, but as far as editing out childish comments being a bad thing....(???!!)

Anyway, just goes to show you how much Wikipedia is used and enjoyed. I hope we can resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction.Waukegan 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Just got a letter from www.peterbrown.tv who says- I don't know what rings an alarm with the robot and results in that message or what the reader who reported it said. I'd really like to know what they say the problem is. You certainly have permission to use it from me. I don't remember where I got the picture - but I'm sure whatever original copyright there was has expired as it is well over 40 years old - I think it's a photo that was sent to fans who wrote into the show in 1958 or 1959. I changed it to the sepia color. I don't think there is a copyright holder at this point.

So as you can see it is in the public domain. Please keep in touch on this issueWaukegan 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The message above (that you were replying to) was left by a bot. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to ask about such things. Wikipedia does not accept images that are used "with permission" or licensed for "non-commercial use". Such images are incompatible with the GFDL, the license under which Wikipedia content is created. If this image is in the public domain, it can probably be used, but I would seriously doubt that it is. If it is/was owned by Disney, they almost certainly would have properly published it with a notice and renewed the copyright. Disney is pretty good about such things. --B 02:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lawmanpic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawmanpic.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:

• 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. 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in Lawman (TV series)

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
2. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
3. It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
4. The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.
5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value. Waukegan 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Voss (surname), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Wasn't sure how the film extra was notable - please either use the discussion page of the article or my talk page. Thanks. WAYCOOL²⁷_talk 14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Waycool. In the article on Mr Voss I put two references. I think having your own private army of 2112 extras in the Golden Age of Hollywood is pretty notable as well as being a technical advisor and extra (but mostly the former). Also has the historical end to him with the Screen Actors Guild in case someone wants to try to to the same thing for a film without computer graphics. I believe some science fiction writer used the idea of him for one oh his stories. Of course on the thing on 'Voss (surname)' I didn't cite any references, mostly to distinguish him from 'Carl Voss (ice hockey player). Thanks and hope to hear from you Waukegan 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mercenaries in popular culture

{{help me}}

What is going on? I've noticed that an image of mine from 'Mercenaries in popular culture' was deleted and noticed that on that one and on 'Merrill's Marauders (film)' not only was that image deleted as well, but my Waukegan name was off the top! What is going on?? As you can see I still have the info on the top on some articles so is this selective? May I have an answer please?

Thank you144.138.27.146 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking, but I'll try. Your image probably was not appropriately licensed, and film may have not been notable. Hope that helps! –Animum 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Access‎

{{help me}} I'm afraid it's more than an image or two vanishing Animum. Usually when I go in the Wik I have my code name, discussion pages, etc up on top. They've totally vanished from most of Wikipedia unless I go into an article that I did (like this one) where those things are still there and I can communicate. Also when I do the(144.138.27.21 07:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)) it came up with some number rather than my code name. So am I banned from Wikipedia, or is there some problem somewhere? Please assist144.138.27.21 07:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I've also tried to sign in again with my old name and have gotten 5 passwords to use, things are strange in Wikiland....144.138.27.21 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you've been signed out. You should log in again with your username and password. If you have trouble with that, try clearing your browser cache and deleting cookies - or try from a different computer. henrik•talk 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Hi, I don't have another computer. I did register with a new username and password but now that new password won't be accepted. What is going on?144.138.25.246 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

are you sure the password you are using is correct?, also try purging you cache and your cookies.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 10:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also try the secure version to see if it helps. KTC 10:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you still having trouble? KTC 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. I got in with a new username and password that seems to be working OK. I greatly appreciate everyone's help. To tell the truth I don't even know what the phrase 'cookies' in relation to computers means. It's just magic to me but I'm back in.

It's rather interesting, when I first logged in my home computer always had the user name and options in red at the top. Now I can only find it on a certain article or two. However, as I said I can log in under my new name.

Thanks again144.138.27.196 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carl Voss (film extra)

The article Carl Voss (film extra) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The sourcing is not enough to show notability, and leading a group of even a very large number of film extras just plain does not make one notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)