File talk:Image is needed male.svg

message: http://i50.tinypic.com/vonddz.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyconall (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  use this? 

message: i think it might be nice to have some links to the copyright laws. especially the famous page at cornell that breaks down exactly what is and isnt in the public domain. 
ah yes here it is.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
Decora (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  easy there big fella 

message: See . Punkmorten (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed!  What can we do to get rid of it aside from manually deleting them?  --AStanhope (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, added to Goldie infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This thing is lame 

message: Among other things (stereotypes, etc), this image looks like the guy had a horrible accident which mutated his head... Why not just use Image:Replace this image1.svg? Skittle (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it looks somewhat worse. And if you have issues with the guy's head take them up with NASA.Genisock2 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ?! Are you suggesting that Nasa mutated the guy's head?! Skittle (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image ultimately derives from :Image:Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male.svg.Genisock2 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. But that image features additional lines showing that there is hair; they can't be held responsible for what the world has done to their image! Skittle (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any real reason we use this and the female one rather than the neutral one? 

message: I don't like the 'do you own one'. It doesn't matter if someone owns one or not, it's whether they can obtain one in digital form that is free and upload it to Wikipedia. "Can you provide one" would be a lot more sensible. Richard001 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "that is free" yeah people don't really get that so we bring the whole ownership thing into play as an attempt to work around that problem.Genisock2 (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders has opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders and may be of interest to editors watching this image. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image would need to be released under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License.Genisock2 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Placeholders 

message: You may publish an image of Slipher from the following homepages:
http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/ 
http://www.lowell.edu/Research/library/paper/vm_slipher_pict.html
I am only a registered wikipedia-member in Germany an I don't want pass through the bureaucracy of wikipedia because of the foto (have tried it once in Germany). (rwalle, 29.05.2008)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.193.219 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: :es:Imagen:Falta imagen hombre.svg Could someone add this?--Domingo Portales (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Español

message: Why not add public domain to the suggestions for how to release your rights to an image you own?  To some this may be preferable to the various nonsense "licenses".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.231.232 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in order to keep things simple we minimized that kind of choice if a user wants a choice of licenses they will be better severed by regular upload.Genisock2 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain? 

message: I think a mention as to why the placeholder was put there would be appropriate in the image description.  Untill I had completely read WP:NFC, I couldn't understand why a non-free picture would not be accepted per fair use policy.  Here's the relevant part:
:Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career. 
While after reading it I could understand how this fit with fair use, I couldn't really figure it out before. --Dandin1 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if say a building is still around it should be possible to get a free pic of it.Genisock2 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free pictures 

message: To give background, I have been a very vocal opponent of how contrasting the image is (I support lowering the image contrast of the human figure to almost non-visibility). However, I am in a hotel on their computer and the background image of the human in the picture succesfully looks almost opaque and is dramatically lighter in color, but the image has not been modified since many months back when I first started having an issue with it. I am wondering why the image is so different. It suggests to me that Wikipedia users and those in the debate regarding this image are seeing two different images of it. Perhaps the background color is actually not Web Color compatible or compatible to those with older video cards and shows differently to some -- has anyone compared how the image looks with a 16-bit True Color format compared to 32-bit True Color? On my personal computer I use 800 x 600 res and 16-bit True Color -- and the background person is jarringly contrasting (a big gray thing looming in the background) and this contrast is why I am so vocal against the image. With whatever settings the hotel has, though, the image is not bad at all. Anyone have an answer? (Question crosslinked to David Gerard, the most recent image changer). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the background shading look dramatically different on different computers? 

message: Why isn't this image showing up? It's just showing a blank in the infoboxen; see James Otto for instance. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it was a temporary server problem; seems fine now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I keep encountering this thing in articles; not all editors are aware of the Centralized Discussion that nixed, by WP community-wide consensus, the use of this and similar images on article pages, and some are thus still deploying it. The status of this image as deprecated is very clear and needs to be made clearer (but it should not be deleted; the centralized and pre-centralized debates about it are of great precedential value, but would be rendered rather inexplicable if the image disappeared, as it is used numerous times in the course of the debate).
#Please place the following at the top of the image page: 
#Please also remove the HTML comment and transclusion, or at least comment-out the latter (and collapse the pointless blank lines in such a case). The transclusion in particular still strongly suggests that these placeholder images are accepted and directly encourages their use.
#The :Category:Protected redirects code should also be removed, as this page is not a redirect.
These changes should be applied to any and all images in this series. I have so far tagged two of them for this editprotected cleanup.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I never heard about this discussion - this thing is used all over the place and continues to be used.  --B (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectively disable 

message: I have a very recent portrait photo of Anger, which I took during his performance with Brian Butler as Technicolor Skull in Copenhagen last saturdag (8th of october 2008), and I'm willing to publish it under a creative commons share alike lince, but I can't seem to upload it since I am not a autoconfirmed member. 
Does anybody have any help to offer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnuskaslov (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can upload the image to wikimedia commons].Genisock2 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does one not need to be autoconfirmed there as well to upload? It makes sense not to require it there since uploading images is (or should be) the main work there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You could do six more edits to become autoconfirmed or submit via Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a very recent picture, but am not auto confirmed. 

message: This image needs a source and a license.--Rockfang (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um NASA via a PNG by my and an SVG by editor at large. All PD.Genisock2 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doubting the fact the image is public domain, but it should still follow policy.  Which means a source and a license should be added.--Rockfang (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were on the talk page (PD means none of the normal legal requirements for tags apply) but appear to have got lost.Genisock2 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source and license 

message: Aren't all images on the Internet free? I mean, since when do you have to pay to save a picture?--Xasitchaine (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get this 

message: Could an admin please add the following text to this image's page:
This image is based on this version of :Commons:Image:Male no free image yet.svg, produced by :Commons:User:Editor at Large (En user: User:Editor at Large) based on the original :Commons:Image:Male_no_free_image_yet.png produced by :Commons:User:Geni (En user: User:Geni).

Please see the above section as to why I'm requesting this.  I got the above bolded information from a link in the licensing template here.--Rockfang (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The reason the image is so firmly PD is that as a result you don't actualy need a tag on the image page and the talk page is quite sufficient in this somewhat unusual case.Genisock2 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Editprotected disabled per Geni.  If there is a compelling reason to add it and a consensus on this page that it needs to be there, feel free to readd the tag.  --B (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the template.  I think policy=consensus in this situation.  All images are supposed to have a source and a license tag on their page.  If we put it on this talk page, what is to stop someone from removing it again?  If we put it on the image's actual page, the chances of it being removed decrease.  There is no valid reason that I can see to ignore policy in this case.  Is there a valid reason to not have the required info on the image's page?--Rockfang (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at it now.  I have added attribution to the bottom and the appropriate category.  This should meet both concerns of wanting to have licensing information+attribution information clearly spelled out while not confusing a potential visitor to the site who would like to contribute an image.  I have also fixed the warning which did not accurately reflect current policy. --B (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems sufficient.--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|editprotected}} 

message: It should be enough that anyone who owns the copyright to a picture allows it to be put on here - to have to give it up and subscribe to some of wikipedias political notions is amoral and wrong. So drop the bullshit about releasing it under any kind of nonsense license. --EnBruger (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not under a free license.Genisock2 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikipedia used to allow the uploading of images published under a "non-commercial" liscense.  That is, we used to re-use images whose owner's sites said, something like: "You can re-use this image, provided you don't try to make a profit from it."  The policy was changed about four years ago.  My understanding is that the reason for the change is that while the wikipedia doesn't make a profit from images, we can't control what those who download images from the wikipedia do.  Since we can't control what wikipedia readers do to images, we shouldn't upload under an image that seems to promise we can control what our readers do with those images.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Wikipedia have to be so greedy? 

message: Instead of giving a link to a wp upload, why not link to the commons? Guy0307 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to commons? 

message: I'd like to add some pictures to this page as i am the artist,
thanks
Zomdish (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please upload the files first and then post a request on the talk page of the actual article in question. Thanks, —fetch·comms 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Zomdish, 5 June 2010 

message: All I'd want to change here is the non-existence of a picture.
PKK Winder (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific with your request? --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like they want to replace this picture with an image of something besides a placeholder... when in fact this is intended to be a placeholder image. Gary King (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from PKK Winder, 9 June 2010 

message: could you upload picture of Hari Bansha Acharya:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Hari_Bansha_Acharya.jpg
Thank you
Sid Ney 14:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Dsilwal, 27 July 2010 

message: This picture? 79.177.20.174 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not just use 

message: Why can't we use images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons license?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.64.64 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons license 

message: Routine housekeeping...please correct the license template as follows:
*
Thanks! Kelly hi! 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you confirm exactly what needs done here? The page currently uses a handwritten PD note rather than a template: it also states that the file is a derivative of an older work. Should that comment be removed? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems unnecessary to me. As far as I can tell, it makes no difference to the categorisation and conveys less accurate information than the current version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I uploaded a photo of ahmad kaabour and wish to put it the background information area
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahmad_Kaabour.jpg
thank you
Y.H (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong template and wrong page, but I've placed it in Ahmad Kaabour's article.--Obsidi♠nSoul 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Hammouday, 19 February 2011 

message: Can I add a picture please?
T4ff9 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're asking this in the wrong place, you need to ask on the talk page of the article itself--Jac16888 Talk 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 24 January 2012 

message: i want to give pic for this person..
182.185.200.72 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Think you're in the wrong spot. Try asking on the article's talk page. — Bility (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 1 April 2012 

message: Hebrew link is need to be added, i'm not allowed to that : he:ויקיפדיה:תמונה חופשית] --Midrashah (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on Hebrew link