Fastfission wrote:
On 11/28/05, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Does that clarify ?
It clarifies your particular situation but it doesn't clarify why I
should be terribly heartbroken that an image you didn't see fit to use
on any page whatsoever got deleted as part of a generally sensible
policy. The people doing this sort of maintenance are neither psychic
nor have nor need the patience required to notify the hundreds of
users who have uploaded images tagged as fair use but not used in
articles and then wait for responses. If they are tagged as fair use,
they should be either used or deleted -- I don't think this is in any
way a rash policy, it is just one which recognizes that a "fair use"
claim resides in "use" and is not a license or a free ticket to "I
want to keep this image here but I cannot or will not license it
freely".
Some of the images were used at a point, but were for some reasons
delinked from the articles.
It sounds to me like you feel somewhat entitled to use
Wikipedia as a
personal file server. But perhaps I am misinterpretted or misreading
something.
FF
Personal file server ?
Again, maybe you may not really realised, but when I uploaded these
images, Commons did not existed. So, it was perfectly understandable
that an editor with a bunch of images that could be useful for the
encyclopedia would upload them where it was possible to upload them.
Now that we have commons, there is no more valid reason to upload images
on wikipedia, and I very very rarely do so (I decided not to upload any
more images on the english wikipedia a year ago anyway).
Images are uploaded on commons precisely to build up a huge database of
images. Would you tell any editor uploading an image on commons that he
is using commons as a personal file server ????
Ant