[WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

[Sam Korn]

On 11/28/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you should not play on words if you were fair.
>
> A year ago, fair use was authorized, with no mention if it was
> authorized in the encyclopedic content or in the user page.
> Amongst the two untaggued pages listed above, one was a picture of my
> daughter and labelled as such. It was clearly not meant for encyclopedic
> space.
>
> Besides, see the message just below as well :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Image_tagging
>
> It says
>
>
>
> P.P.S. I hope all is well with you, and that you are enjoying your
> labors with Angela and Jimbo. :)
>
> Looking here, I'd like to add that the following images need tags:
>         ▪       Image:Acacia.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Dessication.JPG
>         ▪       Image:SablePlante.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Hoggar.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Hoggar2.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Hoggar5.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Oasis.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Sahara3.JPG
>         ▪       Image:Sahara5.JPG
> Any more tags would be a great help. Thanks!
> --[[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682 (talk)]] 08:11, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
>
>
>
> Does that look like an automated message ? The P.P.S. ?
>
>
>
> Look, I find the general behavior which consist in saying to an editor
> "you are allowed to do that", then a year later, to rudely delete work
> without warning, upon the reason it is no more allowed now to do that, a
> bit difficult to admit.
>
> But I find the behavior which consist one year later to deny that what
> was done a year before, was authorized at that time, much more difficult
> to admit. Fair use was authorized a year ago. Period.

I think what you are arguing is something different to quite a lot of
others.  They are saying why the policy was necessary.  Your complaint
is actually that you weren't warned.  I don't think anyone would
disagree that you should have been notified before the deletions took
place.

--
Sam