On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
I don't know, and frankly I don't care. You seem to care, but yet you don't want to ask the only person who knows.
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough that it needs clarifying.
I agree that it'd be useful to clarify it, but I can't think of a better phrasing.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on. But maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were saying about AGF?
He's an admin, you're a banned user. AGF applies differently to each situation :). Seriously, though, if you "wonder about how people [handle] uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator", just ask. I'd say they should be handled like any other photo.
Anyway, if you can't get a straight answer, I'm sorry. But any comment by any of the rest of us would be a guess.
Personally I really don't care who took the photo, as long as it stays out of the article namespace (which I expect).
The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is setting a good example.
Peter
There doesn't seem to be a tag for an image which was released into the public domain by a non-Wikipedian (such as a spouse or friend). That would probably be a good addition to the current tags.
Anthony