Fastfission wrote:
On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@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