Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:48, 10 September 2014

Krzyhorse22, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Krzyhorse22! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Misplaced Pages; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. You are the subject of a discussion at ANI. Regards - DocumentError (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mullah Omar

I type this so that I can get an understanding of where you are coming from in relation to File:Mullah Omar.png .What if the resolution was altered or the image was adjusted? Could it still be considered free use? Could I try and find another version of the image from another site claiming PD? Could I use the other image of Mullah Omar on ? How can I ensure I upload an image that doesn't get deleted every time when I fill out the licensing and permission and everything? It just seems really odd as to why no images are allowed of a person who has a $10 million reward for capture, when it would not only be doing him a great disservice having his image on a Misplaced Pages article but also expanding an article for users. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy when it comes to uploading images. This Mullah Omar's image is without doubt the work of someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan. Because it is very famous photo, someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan could make a claim that it is his work and go the U.S. to file a lawsuit in federal court and ask for millions of dollars, and eventually he will get if he produces evidence. The U.S. government knows this and that's why it won't use the full version. The second issue is that it is not for certain that this is Mullah Omar's face. It is just thought to be him and because of this reason it cannot qualify for fair use. There may be a $10 million reward for his capture, at the same time he is offered a deal to return to Afghanistan and live as a free person with no charges against him. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If the work is from someone within Afghanistan, what if they haven't registered their work with the United States? We don't know the background behind the image, only that it is purported to be Mullah Omar, as the State Department and various media outlets believe. You can see traces that all the images purporting to depict mullah Omar do indeed portray the same person. Notice the width of the nostrils in between the two images, the close resembling facial features of and and the high beard in and . Does it not look like the same person to you, or is it just me? That registry with the U.S on published works appears to be for images with a vested commercial interest, whereas the mullah omar image appears to be equivalent to a mug shot, not something intended to sell. Isn't it an issue that very little is actually known abut who took the image? And does it mean absolutely nothing that Afghanistan isn't a member of the Berne Convention, the World Trade Organisation or the World Intellectual Property Organisation? The Uruguay Round Agreements Act states: the time the work was created, at least one author must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the protection of the Literacy and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S copyright protection to works of that country on the basis pf reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S nationals or domiciliaries. Can this not be taken into consideration when determining if the image is liable under a copyright of any kind, whether in Afghanistan or the U.S? Could I upload an image of Ayman al-Zawahiri from the FBI site without worrying about all these issues with Mullah Omar? I don't mean to annoy you, but I just have absolutely no idea when an image can be uploaded anymore, with all these inquests into non-free use. I thought I had everything done right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Images posted on US government sites don't mean they are free to use, unless an image was specifically created by a U.S. federal government employee during his or her official duty. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide that information.
2. That is not Omar's mug shot. It is Afghanistan's national ID photo.
3. The guy shown from the side was interviewed a number of years ago and it was proven to be someone other than Omar.
4. You can find a better color and latest image of Ayman al-Zawahiri, send email to the author and request permission to use it in Misplaced Pages.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. What if the government site states public-domain? Wouldn't that classify as free to use? Could I just use the exact cropped version of rewards for justice with the low resolution? Or is the reason due to, as you stated, an uncertainty if the image is indeed Mullah Omar? My only counter is that if it's worthy for the U.S to use in displaying a $10 bounty of an individual, than that should prove adequate enough reason that the image is legit.
2. If it's a national ID photo, wouldn't that make the image usable as it's an official government document use solely for identification? I thought ID photos aren't sold for commercial interests. Does that mean that my passport/license photo, for example, has a copyright on it by a private individual?
3. The man was interviewed? StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this man was proven to be a false image of Mullah Omar after this 2003 Vanity Fair article was published. The same source states that the image you uploaded is a 1993 photo by Khalid Hadi. Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you found an article that actually goes into depth about where that image came from. Can't even imagine how long it took searching through the internet to find it. I'm still not convinced however that the image is not depicting Mullah Omar, we know for a fact that he is missing his right eye. See , it's someone who doubted the authenticity of the portrait. Well, the image has now been deleted. I'll now have to consult with you whenever I wish to upload an image so as to not wind up in that damn back and forth jostle ever again. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An Afghan guy claiming he took photo of Mullah Omar is not proof. Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc. Mullah Omar is not the only Afghan with a fucked up eye and long beard. There is another story that I watched on TV which tracked this man to a house in Kandahar and that man was pissed off saying Khalid Hadi took his photo and told the Americans he was Mullah Omar. This is why you can't trust Afghans.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

True, I'm sure there are many afghans with blown out eyes. But see this , I think you might be confusing the person in the image you linked with this image? This is the only site I can find of someone saying they are not Mullah Omar despite the U.S releasing leaflets with that image on it. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mullah Omar images

Could I upload as a non-free work, fair use work under "excerpt from a copyrighted work"? It's a video screenshot taken of Mullah Omar holding the Cloak of Muhammad in Kandahar. And could this image be uploaded as a non-free work, fair use work under "some other kind of non-free work" or as a free-work in the Public-Domain as it's from RfJ? It won't be used as the image in the info-box, but have a description saying "Photo believed to show Mullah Omar according to U.S State Department" somewhere in the article. StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe this is M.O.? Can't you see nothing is wrong with his eyes? It is a recent photo and the person has graying hair which all means it cannot be M.O. Regarding this one, we have no idea who the people are and what they are doing. The standing guy who is suspected to be M.O. has nothing wrong with his eyes. He looks more like Mullah Dadullah. Turbans and Pashtun people are not only found in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan. Who took that photo? How can someone take a photo of M.O. when Taliban didn't allow it? U.S. State Department is not an expert on M.O. In this situation we must rely on experts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I read an article that Mullah Omar may have used a glass eye , which could be a pluasible explanation for the clear discrepancy between the right eye and the left eye in the image. It may be recent, but Mullah Omar is excepted to be in his mid 50's, so I don't understand as to how that would disqualify him from having graying hair. We don't know of his genetics. I stated that I wouldn't make the image the sole focus by putting it in the info-box stating that it's M.O, and would put it somewhere in the article stating that the U.S State Department believe this person to be M.O, which is true. I don't know why we would withhold information from an article, especially it it's from the PD. is a screenshot taken from a documentary recorded at a Kandahar mosque in April 1996 where Mullah Omar revealed the cloak of Muhammad. That screenshot is taken from a considerable distance, and is zoomed in. Also bear in mind the quality of filming equipment from the 90's era. It has been widely reported , even on Misplaced Pages that he did possess Muhammad cloak in such a ceremony ,. The film was taken clandestinely, meaning no one in that image knew they were being recorded at the time.

However, you haven't answered my original question. I stated, if I could upload these two images under their respective licences. You haven't stated no, so I am assuming I am allowed to without any hitches, but I know you don't want me to, becuase?... StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying about this is very stupid. I heard the false eye rumor before that article was published, and I seen people with false eye but they don't look anything like the guy in this image. To me he is about 30 something, it's just the beard that makes him look older. Now, why the fuck would he stand there and let someone take a close up picture of him? Who took that picture? The truth is that's not MO but someone else. There is clear evidence somewhere that proves it is another person. I don't have time to search it. You keep mentioning U.S. State Department, there is nothing special about that agency when it comes to MO. Many sources have said MO took the cloak out in public but the sources don't say this is MO. Sources say MO took it out of the box but look again and see who is taking it out of the box. The problem with you is that you want to force your weak belief on everyone, and that shit is not allowed here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Obaidullah Akhund.png

Why do you always seem to delete the things that I upload? The image was under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license.. How could that have been an issue..? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)