On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)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
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
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
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.
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.