File talk:Image is needed male.svg

Image can be found here and should be easy to be integrated. The infed is a not-for-profit site which is going to "donate" the image to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.231.60 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is lame

See Image talk:Replace this image female.svg#This thing is lame. Punkmorten (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! What can we do to get rid of it aside from manually deleting them? --AStanhope (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goldie_2003.jpg (found on the drum and bass page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.96.134 (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added to Goldie infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real reason we use this and the female one rather than the neutral one?

Among other things (stereotypes, etc), this image looks like the guy had a horrible accident which mutated his head... Why not just use Image:Replace this image1.svg? Skittle (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks somewhat worse. And if you have issues with the guy's head take them up with NASA.Genisock2 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?! Are you suggesting that Nasa mutated the guy's head?! Skittle (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image ultimately derives from Image:Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male.svg.Genisock2 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. But that image features additional lines showing that there is hair; they can't be held responsible for what the world has done to their image! Skittle (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I don't like the 'do you own one'. It doesn't matter if someone owns one or not, it's whether they can obtain one in digital form that is free and upload it to Wikipedia. "Can you provide one" would be a lot more sensible. Richard001 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"that is free" yeah people don't really get that so we bring the whole ownership thing into play as an attempt to work around that problem.Genisock2 (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Placeholders

A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders has opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders and may be of interest to editors watching this image. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Norm Johnson and received his permission to place a photo of him here (one from his personal webpage) I have this documentation (though not a "legal release" in the context of a signed/notarized form) but an email from him stating he would be very happy to have his photo included. Is that enough to post it? If not, as I have means to contact him, what do I need to add this image? Thanks, just want to do this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneHappyHusky (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image would need to be released under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License.Genisock2 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new version in the meantime:

(I couldn't replace the old image because the page was protected.) I'd be happy to make one for the female if anyone's interested. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

You may publish an image of Slipher from the following homepages: http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/ http://www.lowell.edu/Research/library/paper/vm_slipher_pict.html I am only a registered wikipedia-member in Germany an I don't want pass through the bureaucracy of wikipedia because of the foto (have tried it once in Germany). (rwalle, 29.05.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.193.219 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Español

{{editprotected}} es:Imagen:Falta imagen hombre.svg Could someone add this?--Domingo Portales (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain?

Why not add public domain to the suggestions for how to release your rights to an image you own? To some this may be preferable to the various nonsense "licenses". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.231.232 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because in order to keep things simple we minimized that kind of choice if a user wants a choice of licenses they will be better severed by regular upload.Genisock2 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free pictures

I think a mention as to why the placeholder was put there would be appropriate in the image description. Untill I had completely read WP:NFC, I couldn't understand why a non-free picture would not be accepted per fair use policy. Here's the relevant part:

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

While after reading it I could understand how this fit with fair use, I couldn't really figure it out before. --Dandin1 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because if say a building is still around it should be possible to get a free pic of it.Genisock2 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the background shading look dramatically different on different computers?

To give background, I have been a very vocal opponent of how contrasting the image is (I support lowering the image contrast of the human figure to almost non-visibility). However, I am in a hotel on their computer and the background image of the human in the picture succesfully looks almost opaque and is dramatically lighter in color, but the image has not been modified since many months back when I first started having an issue with it. I am wondering why the image is so different. It suggests to me that Wikipedia users and those in the debate regarding this image are seeing two different images of it. Perhaps the background color is actually not Web Color compatible or compatible to those with older video cards and shows differently to some -- has anyone compared how the image looks with a 16-bit True Color format compared to 32-bit True Color? On my personal computer I use 800 x 600 res and 16-bit True Color -- and the background person is jarringly contrasting (a big gray thing looming in the background) and this contrast is why I am so vocal against the image. With whatever settings the hotel has, though, the image is not bad at all. Anyone have an answer? (Question crosslinked to David Gerard, the most recent image changer). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Why isn't this image showing up? It's just showing a blank in the infoboxen; see James Otto for instance. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was a temporary server problem; seems fine now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively disable

{{Editprotected}} I keep encountering this thing in articles; not all editors are aware of the Centralized Discussion that nixed, by WP community-wide consensus, the use of this and similar images on article pages, and some are thus still deploying it. The status of this image as deprecated is very clear and needs to be made clearer (but it should not be deleted; the centralized and pre-centralized debates about it are of great precedential value, but would be rendered rather inexplicable if the image disappeared, as it is used numerous times in the course of the debate).

Please place the following at the top of the image page: {{Warning|1=Do not add this image to article pages. The proposal to add such images to articles [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders|has been rejected]]. The image is preserved for historical reasons, as it is frequently cited in the proposal debates.}}
Please also remove the HTML comment and transclusion, or at least comment-out the latter (and collapse the pointless blank lines in such a case). The transclusion in particular still strongly suggests that these placeholder images are accepted and directly encourages their use.
The Category:Protected redirects code should also be removed, as this page is not a redirect.

These changes should be applied to any and all images in this series. I have so far tagged two of them for this editprotected cleanup.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, the status of this image as deprecated is not clear at all. Which discussion was the image actually deprecated in? --Brilliand (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterWiki

Please let us use this image for public purposes and add the syntax: "Hình:Ngoi_sao_nam.svg", too. Thanks a lot. TanPhat Nguyen.