- For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
- To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
- To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
- To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~~~) and save.
- Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
- Be bold.
Friendship and Love images
I've removed the images you added to these two pages. Most importantly, the images lack sufficient information about their copyright status. I notice that on Jeffq's talk page, you say that there are "no problems" with them, but that isn't sufficient for the Wikimedia Commons nor for Wikiquote. In order for it to truly be okay, the images need to either be public domain (whether by being sufficiently old, which these are not, or by the creator explicitly releasing them to the public domain, with proof of identity) or specifically licensed to allow their use. Neither of the images, at present, meet these conditions, and unless evidence of their public-domain or licensed status is shown within the next week or so, the images will be removed from the Commons.
Secondly, I don't think that the images worked particularly well here. The "Friendship" image seemed like it might just have needed to be resized, but the "Love" image needed some serious cropping (and resizing) to make it not only smaller, but more clear what it was about. —LrdChaos (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cme, based on your original post to my talk page, I assume that you are claiming to be the artist, Aline Mattei. We have no way of knowing whether you are or not, as there is no easy way to tie a Wikimedia username to a real-life person. The way we ensure that Wikimedia projects (like Wikiquote and Commons) have the legal right to use images contributed to them is to demand an explicit statement from the uploader that the image is properly licensed. That statement must appear on the upload page for the image, not here. If it does not, the image is tagged with a no-copyright message, and it may be deleted by anyone if no such licensing assertion is posted within 7 days. This information is clearly shown on the image pages, together with a link to Commons:Copyright tags that provides quick templates to make this license statement easy. I recommend you review these and select one that matches the situation for each image. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I revised your comments about the Eagle nebula and placed them on the Image:Stellar spire eagle nebula.jpg file for the image at the commons: "This object is actually a billowing column of cold gas and dust emerging from the stellar nursery called the Eagle Nebula. The column is 9.5 light-years or about 90 trillion kilometres long, about twice the distance from our Sun to the next nearest star." I removed the caption and the image from the God page, because there was no clear relevance being stated about the subject of God, as was the case with the image you removed, and which I restored. ~ Kalki 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you not have reasons
- I was the first person in introduce images ¿ok? --Cme 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You were hardly the first person to introduce images to this project, and at least some of the images you introduced were deleted as copyright violations; the image you are replacing has stated relevance, and the caption used actually rebukes the notion of an anthropomorphic God, such as is pictured with a very famous depiction by William Blake. The image you are replacing it with, though striking and probably usable in some context on the page, is provided only with technical data (and somewhat inappropriate notions of "rising" and such). I don't object to the image, I simply think it should be used at a size and position relative to the others, and with an appropriate caption. ~ Kalki 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your continual repostings of an image and a caption which continues to have no stated relevance to the article page on God, and removal of one that does is beginning to amount to vandalism. Please stop removing content from Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not encyclopedic information on gas clouds. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses or user names being blocked from editing. If you believe your edits are being unjustly criticized or reverted take it to the Wikiquote:Village pump and state your case. ~ Kalki 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have now added the image which you were using to replace the top image, with a caption of the first quotation on the page with which it seemed to fit well, and also used it to replace a lower resolution image of the same region that I had used on the page for Giordano Bruno. The caption you were using gave no indication of any relevance to the page:
- "This object is actually a billowing tower of cold gas and dust rising from a stellar nursery called the Eagle Nebula. The soaring tower is 9.5 light-years or about 90 trillion kilometres high, about twice the distance from our Sun to the next nearest star. Credit: NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team STScI/AURA)]]."
- As I indicated earlier, I modified this comment for accuracy of description and posted it to the commons file:
- "This object is actually a billowing column of cold gas and dust emerging from the stellar nursery called the Eagle Nebula. The column is 9.5 light-years or about 90 trillion kilometres long, about twice the distance from our Sun to the next nearest star."
- I believe that I have indicated somewhere before that images need not have extreme relevance to the page they are on, but there should be some relevance discernible, and some effort should be made to indicate it with a captioned quotation, not a description of the image that leaves it entirely to others as to why you deem it relevant. The image I chose to use at the top is a very famous work of art depicting an anthropomorphic conception of God, but the quote used indicates that insistence on such idolatry of the human form, whether to promote or dispute the reality of God, involves rather limited perspectives. ~ Kalki 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)