" 

  

 ==Chinatown, Oakland inuse?== 
 Hi, you've placed an inuse template at 17:29.  Just wondering when you will be done so I can also do some edits.  Thanks   
 :I removed the inuse template to do some edits   

 ::Actually, I have no plans to edit that article. I saw your notice at the top of the article, and I replaced it with the inuse template.    

 == Latest news on image copyrights == 

 FYI, there's been a change in the allowed uses of copyrighted images. ""Non-commercial only"" permission is no longer allowed, per Jimbo Wales himself. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial images.  I don't know how this will effect your attempt to get permission from the Wizards of the Coast. -  

 :I have already read Jimbo's statement regarding that issue. I think that is a very stupid change. What's wrong with Jimbo? If Wikipedia has the copyright owner's permission, then the images should be allowed.    

 ::Yes, it is a difficult policy because images are hard to ""paraphrase."" Well, I guess we could sketch. Or go take our own photographs, when that's possible (not easy to photograph an orc). So, did the Wizards ever even respond to your letter? I recently asked for a GFDL license from a group for a news-type photo, using one of these Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission, and they gave unlimited permission. You might ask again. Maybe someone in the marketing department would see value. Cheers, -  

 :::No word from Wizards yet. They are a huge corporation, so it's not a surprise that they haven't answered yet (if they ever will).    

 ::::Do you mind if I try? -  

 :::::Not at all.    

 == Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted == 

 Why are ""non-commercial only"" and ""by permission only"" images going to be deleted? If one has the copyright owner's permission to use the images, then one would think that using the images is okay.    

 :Our goal is to create a _free_ (in the sense of GNU) encyclopedia.  Non-free images are contrary to that purpose.  When we accept non-free images, we make our work proprietary, that is to say, we change our work so that only Wikipedia may use it, no one else can use it.  This is contrary to our fundamental principles. 

 :The Four Freedoms of free software apply to Wikipedia.  People should have the right to copy our work.  They should have the right to distribute our work.  They should have the right to modify our work.  And they should have the right to distribute modified versions of our work. 

 :There are a great many complexities and borderline cases associated with this.  ""Fair use"" presents a challenging example, and I think that we rely far too heavily on fair use and that virtually all (yes, virtually all!) of the images which are currently tagged as 'fair use' should be deleted.  But this is a grey area and so at this time, I only urge people to be cautious about those. 

 :But ""by permission only"" and ""non-commercial only"" are not grey areas.  They are clearly non-free images which hurt our work.  The examples I gave on the mailing list show why  we are in some cases using non-free images when it would be trivial to get a free image.  This means that people who want to use our work get a broken work.  This is bad. 

 :  

 ::imho its hypocritical to allow fair use images which are of virtually no use to commercial reusers  due to variations in copyright law and which can only be used in context whilst not allowing images with permission that is simarlarlly restrictive. I do agree about the