User talk:Jkelly/Archive09

Thanks

Appreciate your help cleaning up the BLP vio at Francis Pym. Could you block PyatPree (talk · contribs) too, as he's been confirmed by RFCU as a sock of an indef-blocked user? Choess 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use (Cont'd)

Thanks for the pointers in your response. Currently, I have a written request (cc: permissions at WP dot org) of Artists Rights Society (http://www.arsny.com/) for consent. I am hoping to add Campbell's Soup Cans II to with consent. The Museum of Contemporary Arts, Chicago will send image if I get consent. The ARSNY will probably render an opinion on the 8 current image inclusions soon as well. I also may request an image from the Andy Warhol Museum depicting phase 3 if they have one once ARSNY gives me an understanding of their perspective on consent. TonyTheTiger 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you have any general opinion of the qualification of the article for FA now? TonyTheTiger 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding That Help

Firstly, thanks for your attention, and attempt to help orient me. I had gotten as far as reading the guildline pages you've directed me to, but as always, the difference between theory and practice is the devil's playground.

Perhaps my difficulty arises from the pre-existing defects in the Inconvenient Truth page to which you allude. After all, given that it is so self evidently try, why doesn't the article acknowledge that Gore's thesis is a hotly contested one?

In any event, perhaps we could work through what you would regard as the proper course of action for correcting the flaw that I have set about correcting. Specifically, the section I have edited is deliberately crafted to give the false impression that Gore's thesis--that man is a principle cause of observed global warming--is, if not demonstrated scientific fact, at least the only sensible presumption in view of the evidence. Clearly, that's the POV of a certain faction. My POV is that Gore's arguments sweep under the rug several serious holes in our present understanding of climatology (we needn't address motives; those are neither here nor there). Surely, the NPOV thesis is to acknowledge both positions, at least presuming that I can support my POV by specifically identifying one or more of those holes?

Or, to put it another way, I am offering a different thesis as the proper NPOV thesis. Either (1) I am self evidently correct, and the thesis statements in the article should be changed to acknowlege the contentious nature of Gore's thesis, or (2) it is incumbent upon me to support my position with citations to evidence. I chose the later path.

I am, therefore, stunned at the suggestion that it might be inappropriate for me to support my position with citations. So I infer that the real key to your statement about the "no new research" policy is the bit about how that reputable climatologist needs to be speaking specifically about Gore, rather than about the things that Gore said. To put it in abstract logical terms, I understand you to be saying that, if Gore states "P," it is a violation of the "no new research" policy for me to cite reputable climatologists saying "not P"--to conform to the policy, I have to cite reputable climatologists saying "when Gore said P he was wrong."

At this point, I rather hope you think I've misrepresented your statement. Believe me, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse. Frankly, I'm quite confident that I can back up my position on the science--I've studied the matter since my days as a physics undergrad in the late 80s--and I'm eager to do exactly that. My goal is to do so without arguing with or changing the policies of this forum. But I have trouble believing that this is really the policy. By all means, set me strait...—Preceding unsigned comment added by QBeam (talk • contribs)

Assistance

Some person is modifying my userpage and has slapped a "personal attack" template on my talk page because he /she disagress with my position about IP editors. I do not feel that anything on my userpage constitutes a "personal attack" and feel that this template is inappropriate. Will you please intervene? - WeniWidiWiki 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard - Apparently I am not allowed to express an opinion on my userpage. - WeniWidiWiki 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East of Eden copyright infringements?

There have been some disputes regarding the article, East of Eden. You have been somewhat involved in the discussion resulting from these disputes, so you may wish to check out the situation and make some comments. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes versus article writing

I noticed this comment you made about Cairo Rail Bridge. I have to agree, that is the worst example of 'infobox but no article' that I've seen (not to mention the succession box. Were you mentioning that in jest, or are you serious about trying to restrain excessive infoboxing of Wikipedia (the infamous Infopedia scenario)? I've long wanted to see something sensible written about the advantages and disadvantages of infoboxes, and how to prevent them bloating (like the one at Earth). Any advice or links? Carcharoth 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Elinor again - Lladró and Swarovski

Regarding this, you're welcome. You've been very helpful to me, so I was glad to be able to do somthing for you. For questions about images I'm thinking of uploading in the future, I'll go to the pages you suggest. In the meantime, there are two more (related) things I want to mention to you.

1) I uploaded an image of some Lladró figurines. Because of what you had said, I uploaded them here, and not at Commons, and I used the statue tag. However, in the article Lladró, there was already an image, tagged as public domain. My feeling is that if that's public domain, mine can be too, and if mine shouldn't be, neither should that. Would it be appropriate for me to do what you did when I asked you about the tag for a Hummel figurine?

2) I was also thinking of taking a photo of some Swarovski glass animals. Again, I assumed that the statue tag would be the correct tag, and that I shouldn't upload them to Commons. However, the article mentions that Commons has material relating to Swarovski. When I followed the link, I found a unicorn and two bears that I felt, based on what you had said and what you had suggested I read, should have been uploaded here instead, with the statue tag.

Okay, that's it. I promise not to ask you any more questions for a while! ElinorD 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potty mouths & IP vandalism

Thanks for being so quick on the stick. In the context of the brouhaha about the contributions of IP editors, this is just dripping with irony. LOL - WeniWidiWiki 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Stomakhin article and my contraversial block

The bottom line is:

• Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
• Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
• one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
• Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
• Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
• Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
• Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
• Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
• The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
• Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Inquiry

See WP:ES

Listed under "Links normally to be avoided" are "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Cdrod431 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for your comments. You put your finger on one of my worries, in fact. These images are perfectly legal in Wikipedia (in fact they're being used for exactly what they're provided for), so what's the problem? Well, it's to do with what happens down the line, and part of that involves commercial uses. Now, I don't put in all this unpaid work for it to be sold, in any form or in any way, and I should think most editors feel the same way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user page

Thanks for your words of explanation that Wikipedia is for the hobbist. Looking at it that way helps make all the goings-on tolerable. A person academically trained believes Wikipedia's initial presentation -- that it wants to be a true encyclopedia, reliably sourced etc. And that goal, of course, gets an editor quickly into trouble. Seeing the purpose as something else entirely, or making up a personal purpose, works better. I read your user page a while ago and have been thinking about it. So, thanks! Regards, Mattisse 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, more than once in fact. It is an interesting and well thoughtout perspective. I didn't mention it because I am so unsure of the direction Wikipedia is going ultimately, although as I write this I feel more optimistic. Thanks to you also for being a calming presence in all this muddle. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read some nice point you made elsewhere very tactfully. The way you are is a beneficial presence, although I have not always agreed with you. I am beginning to see the good in proceeding as you do. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise

Cribbing from Mattisse's last note to you, I too have thought some about your mini-essay on expertise on WP. Nothing in it surprised me (well, maybe the French vs. German lit cards) but it is good to see it articulated. Particularly since WP is aimed at a general level of understanding and comprehension, not an expert level. I certainly know a number of experts in their fields who cannot, even to save their life, write to a general level. They have no ability to simplify and translate jargon into readily understandable language. I blame the academic system which encourages complexity of expression and often writing to your peers the higher you ascend. Simplicity is so pre-postmodern...

Dueling experts is often a particularly fruitless exercise on talk pages. Sometimes I look at such discussion as a non-expert and think "The fact in question doesn't even belong in the article, it's probably too esoteric for a general article." Um, not that I'm advocating dumbing articles down too far. You probably understand what I'm getting at. It's one reason I enjoy working on articles I have only a cursory knowledge about: It's easier to sift through and shake out the more essential elements. Ta. --Pigman^talk 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not perceive your piece as frustrated. Unlike some people, I don't think criticism is ipso facto a bad thing. Perhaps it's my journalistic background which also made me read it more as observation than being critical just to be critical. I particularly hear your comment about the challenge (and satisfaction for me) of properly and accurately representing a subject in understandable terms. On some subjects, this is an extremely difficult task. But in the end, to do it, you as a writer also need to understand the subject well enough to express it in simpler terms. That, for me, is often the hardest part. Sometimes the original writing in articles is so convoluted and/or badly written, I have trouble extracting the information to rephrase. I find that frustrating because my own lack of knowledge in some particular area means I just have to pass over the article or risk misstating the info. But, more and more, I'm finding people on Wikipedia to call on to help in such situations. And that's great. Despite, ahem, some recent events which shall go nameless, I find Wikipedia a community worth belonging to and participating in. (I sound like a politician there.) Here's hoping I learn to moderate my participation and don't burn out. Currently I seem to be on a Wikignoming run with AutoWikiBrowser, fixing spelling mostly. It's very untaxing, almost relaxing in its simplicity. I think I need this after the events-that-dare-not-speak-its-name. (hmm, the subject/object or singular/plural don't match in that phrase. oh, well.) I suspect I'm doing such minor but necessary tasks because it is unlikely to put me in contention with anyone over content disputes. This feels like a Wiki-break at the moment. --Pigman^talk 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Consensus

Please define the wideness of the consensus you speak of. Consensus seems to be wider for some people on Wikipedia than others, which is a shame considering that Wikipedia is generally seen as having a egalitarian reputation (I didn't see a little asterisk with a link to statements like yours next to "The Free Encyclopedia Anybody Can Edit" statement on the front page.)

I don't agree with your edit, but I don't edit war, and from your tone, I assume you do not wish to try and find a middle ground. Have a pleasant evening.Just H 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wilde

Heh, I actually contributed that quote to Wilde on Uncyclopedia on the (long deleted in the great purge of 2005) 100 dollar bill article. I just had to use it again. Teke^(talk) 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes again

There is some discussion going on (or about to start) at Template talk:Infobox Writer. Would you be able to contribute and explain how the Google parsing and removing parameters but not tidying up articles things work? Carcharoth 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

Would you be willing to offer your opinion on the fair use status of these images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_4#Image:.27.27Conflict_Onan.27.27_by_Anton_Brink.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_4#Image:Onan.jpeg

Thanks,

CyberAnth 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I appreciated the outside perspective. CyberAnth 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

Why were images under the template Template:CAnkawa deleted? Why did you not confront me first before taking actions? Chaldean 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were NOT media license pictures. I dont understand your arguement. These pictures are from the Assyrian community in Iraq. They posts these pictures in a forum where all Assyrians get together. Did you even read the agreement? Chaldean 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes their is a miscommunication, because I am not understanding you.

1. Ankawa.com has allowed any of its images to be used on wikipedia.org, as stated in the agreement

2. Ankawa.com just does not wanted ME (personally) making money off of the pictures.

What is the problem now? Chaldean 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me be more clear. He wrote the message in a way confronting me, instead confronting the website. The owner of the site is Assyrian and Arabic speaker, with very little knowledge of English, hense the message being written in Assyrian and me translating it. Here is the agreement; Shlama eloukh. Ankawa.com shoka ayet daretle emet sourathe kebet min website aidian gawed website ad wikipeida.org. Ankawa.com bas kepa logo adeana hoya gawad kolla sourathe aid holoukh be drae gawad ad website. Khna shokukh ana souretha eboukh odat estim3al mad kebet o thetle, bas la othet pare gawa. It states the ok to use the pictures throughout the whole message and in the end it states shokukh ana souretha eboukh odat estim3al mad kebet o thetle, bas la othet pare gawa. - you can use this pictures for any reason with ankawa.com being cited if you are using it for profit making. In other words, I he directed toe message to me saying I can't make money off of the pictures unless ankawa.com is cited. Chaldean 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion as my english is not the best. I am not an expert on the copyright templates in terms of which one to use, but I thought I did it right. I will email the original email of permission to that address you gave me. Chaldean 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken care of it yet? Chaldean 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want it the email me give you here or do you want me to email it back to the email address you gave me? Also how long until the pictures come back up? Thank you. Chaldean 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem Chaldean 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any word when the pictures will be back up? Chaldean 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will them about the statue pictures, I'm not sure. The patriach picture was given to ankawa.com from one of the Church of the East of Ankawa. I can get more info on it. Chaldean 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, their are more pictures; [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] and [[4]] Chaldean 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi their JKelly. I have convinved an online magazine (www.zindamagazine.com) to release its pictures as well. So I was wondering if we could do something like what we did with the ankawa.com situation. I have the permission email send already, what do you want me to do now? Chaldean 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this time its in English, so that good. I will forward the email now. Chaldean 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didnt get no response. Do you want me to send it again? Chaldean 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing yet? I just forwarded the email again. Chaldean 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I can contribute anyway I can. Chaldean 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of living persons adminship

"Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Wikipedia." Please see WP:BLPADMIN to offer your thoughts on this proposal. CyberAnth 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubonics

Hello Sir! If I were not a very active participant in this, I think I might close it, what with the recent decision by the most vociferous would-be deleter that he doesn't want it deleted after all (a decision that doesn't stop him asking expletive-deleted questions). But of course I mustn't push you, or anybody else.... -- Hoary 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:18 (UTC)

MBE

Wow, you are fast!

Image:Macarthurj.jpg

On January 11, 2007, I emailed the permission to use the Image:Macarthurj.jpg to [e-mail] per When permission is confirmed. On January 26, 2007, the image was deleted. See [5]. I just emailed the permission to use the Image:Macarthurj.jpg again to [e-mail]. Would you look into this and let me know what else I can do to have the image tagged with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }}? Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions email (copied from here)

First of all, I want to apologise for the delay you experienced. We're quite backlogged. I'm not sure that's the reason nothing happened, however. I've looked over the email you forwarded to us quite carefully, and I am unable to find the actual release statement in it. Did your email client perhaps trim it out of the email due to the length? Am I missing it somewhere in the midst of the text? Would it be helpful for me to send you back what you sent us? Jkelly 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, but I appreciate it. At the top of the email, the email client wrote "Below is a summary of your request and our response." In their response at the bottom of the email, the requested Permissions were granted. (Category Level 1: Rights and Permissions; Category Level 2: Permissions) -- Jreferee 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but that's not really a binding licensing statement... it looks more like their email-sorting queue to me. You never got a further response from them? I'm afraid that we really need something more authoritative than that, since we wouldn't know who to attribute the copyright to, a requirement of the GFDL. Jkelly 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll contact them again. -- Jreferee 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received a reply from the email client. They have a huge copyright policy, which is not GFDL. Since I will not be able to get a GFDL license for the image, please close my licensing requests. Thanks. -- Jreferee 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

're welcome. It was the first time I got a (-248,736) in my watchlist. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FU on FACs

Some help here would be nice. --Peta 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related not, how many sounds samples do you think constitutes too many? Are sounds used by mirrors? --Peta 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems pretty logical. --Peta 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J, the editors of the The Smashing Pumpkins article have started emailing fanzines, newspapers, magazines and flicker photographers to try and track down free images to use in the article. In the meantime, is there an acceptable number of fair use files that can be used? I appreciate that there is no magic number, but if the context of the image is weaved into the text of the article, would be possible to retain just a few? Thanks for you time and input on this. + Ceoil 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at this nom too, please.--Peta 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Storm (comics) one] --Peta 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I assumed it was. What made me think so? Because Wikipedia banned by-permission stuff a long time ago. Was it uploaded under {{Permission}} or something? I guess the discussion about {{logo}} should have tipped me off. Hbdragon88 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Regarding your old comment here, [6] so is this an exception? [7] thanks :-) Nareklm 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what about this im sure this will work, [8] thanks. Nareklm 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! :-) ill upload it to commons now. Nareklm 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey the bot did not approve i assume its the wrong license? [9] Nareklm 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a license and the source, didn't think i needed anything else. Nareklm 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words! Picture backlog hell only allows me limited wikidebate time, fair use here and ToL on commons are the two... :-) Stan 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi FAC

Hi! I've been reffered to you by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). The article Delhi is in FAC. Sandy told me to request you to check if the images in Delhi are ok to use. Could you please have a look? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Tree Hill

Hey there. Please could you check out the pictures being used on One Tree Hill (TV series) and tell me whether or not they're fair use? Thanks, godgoddingham ^333 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV station logos

I just found out that the images I had uploaded of historical logos from WEAU-TV were orphaned. When I uploaded them last fall, I had been under the impression that these logos were permissable under fair use. My intention is to create a historical gallery of logos for the WEAU page, adding to the historical information on the rest of the page. You mentioned that I can give a claim of fair use, but, being fairly new to the whole world of Wikipedia, I want to make sure I know exactly what I need to do to show justification for having these logos on the website. I'm also curious why historical logos for other stations (ie. WCCO, WQOW) have not been orphaned, and if there's something different about those images that allows them to be used on Wikipedia.

Basically, just respond with what I need to do to show why these logos should be on Wikipedia, and, if I'm unable to justify them in their current format, what would be an acceptable source from which to upload these logos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1986q (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cs.source

Hi. Thx for your editing on s:cs:Atheňanko, než dál jdem by Byron today, but we had to revert your edit. The problem is, that the text has been translated by a known Czech poet Vrchlický who uses žití (= life) not Zoe. But anyway, if we can get some information on this, eg. what the sentence Zoë mou sas agapo (the English poem) means, who Zoe is, what Byron wanted to say..., so we can write about this in a notice. Thx, -jkb- 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thx for message. So, can we understand it in that way, that there is something like a play of words, or a play of different meanings of a word? It is interesting, as the translator, the poet Vrchlický (see also Jaroslav Vrchlický here), is supposed first to have known english very good (he translated a whole book of different english/irish/scottish poets), and secondly, as a poet by himselves, he also is supposed to make inverstigations about such things. -jkb- 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback requested

Will you please rollback my userpage? Willmosley redirected it to his userpage and then blanked it. - WeniWidiWiki 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - WeniWidiWiki 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jkelly, I was just eavesdropping at your page here, and took a look at what had been happening. The move was done by User:Willmosley, but he moved the talk page to User talk:WillMosley. Note the upper case M. When you had finished cleaning up the mess, you left a welcome message at User talk:WillMosley, but in fact, there is no such user. That account was never registered. If you look at the links on the left of the user page or talk page, you'll find there is no link for contributions. If it were just an account that hadn't been used, as opposed to one that hadn't been created, there would be a link for the contributions, but the contributions page would be empty. Sorry to see you getting some undeserved criticism, by the way. Musical Linguist 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I wouldn't do a boilerplate. However I would like to encourage many people to vote, so...:) Garion96 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First admin question, just to be sure. What to do with this image Image:Obeissante.jpg. On the one hand it has not got a source, but you could assume it's PD. And this one Image:PunchMuch.gif. It's a logo of PunchMuch, so can you assume it came from their website and tag it accordingly? I couldn't really find a clear answer in Category talk:Images with unknown source. Garion96 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. Regarding the issue above your post on my talk. Yes, if it's serious I wil definitely refer her to the foundation. Garion96 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

But I changed the text in my own words I can not just change the events so they don't overlap with the cited text.Top Gun

PETA images

Sure, no problem. :) Just give me a couple of days and I'll send something to you. Ekantik ^talk 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberanth

Difs in report are now corrected. JoshuaZ 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - replied on my talk

Dbuckner 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the Michael Ratner edit

Excuse me, I have pointed out: a. this is not original research it is from a reporter for the Downtown Brooklyn Star. http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/home.asp?PID=4 b. It is referencing official government sites. Therefore is not original research. It meets the criteria for unimpeachable research. I think at this point you need to prove to me why it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs)

Peter Balakian Image

In what way is the use of | this image bad fair use? I believe it adequately illustrates the person in question with a low resolution screenshot. -- Augustgrahl 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. It's the first time my page has been defaced. I'm so proud. ;) Liberal Classic 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up tag on Olympia, Greece

Hi there. I removed the gallery clean-up tag on Olympia, Greece#Gallery because I don't think it is warranted. The page has two large info boxes and is currently quite short, so to distribute the relevant images through the text isn't practical. I think the inclusion of images is useful considering the nature of the article and a gallery is a good way to display them at the moment. Best wishes. Madmedea 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my battle..

Just curious. On the Twiggy thing:

FUC #10 - Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).

But if it isn't different -- that is, if the source (Twiggy's official website) and the copyright holder (Twiggy) are the same -- then how does this image fail #10? I read this to mean that the copyright holder attribution is needed ONLY if it different than the source.

A similar problem cropped up recently with a photo the original uploader claimed was a Virgin Records promotional photo of Boy George. To me... having seen thousands of these style photos in the past... I had no reason to believe it was NOT what the original uploader said. The "source," such as it was, was Virgin Records, and since the photo was in all likelyhood work for hire, they would be the copyright holder as well. But certain, uh, elements disagreed...

Seriously, not picking a fight. Just curious...

Jenolen ^speak it! 10:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering buying a print to scan anyway. Think it is worth it sight unseen? I'm not sure I want to make a habit of doing this; it could get expensive. -- What??? Never in a million years should you do this. If the Foundation wants to begin buying prints of PD images to scan in, that's one thing, but my feeling is that in no way, shape, or form should individual editors be purchasing material specificially to scan and upload to Wikipedia. Especially not when there are FREE and LEGAL means of using the same photos. And besides -- what if someone, in the future, changes the image rules again, and then your photo is wiped out? Seem unlikely? So does the odds of us having ANY trouble fairly using any number of promotional or govermental photos that have already been removed in pursuit of the ultimate libre standard. Jenolen ^speak it! 23:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Fair Use issue

I just downloaded a map image for use in Anjaw District. It is from the Indian state government website in which the district lies. I could not find info on copyright, but it is a promotional/press release site. What do you think? It will be deleted soon if I don't put the right tag on it. (On Wiki Commons there are no maps for any of the districts in this state.) Sincerely, Mattisse 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you draw the map with?

Does Wikipedia have a tool or something? I still have WindowsMe on an old machine and I tried downloading some drawing programs but they were incompatible with my OS. Oh well. Thanks for answering. (I wish my computer weren't so healthy and would jus die!) Sincerely, Mattisse 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. So I should just put a delete request on the image now and save everyone the bother?[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have ownload Gimp. I perceive a steep lealing curve, but opeen source is my philosohy. Thanks you for your kind and thoughtful help. It is much appreciated. Sincerely, Mattisse 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nowak

Thanks. Rklawton 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advise sought

Problems with User:Top Gun continue on WP:AN/I ("Block evasion, continuing copyvio"). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOOOCHO>

hey. you're supposed to be in bed sleeping. you have a big exam tomorrow. don't forget! AMEN!!!!! please leave me a message, i would love to get to know you better. thanks so much. no arguing allowed after lights out. Weird Wetland

your exam

hi. How was your exam? How did you do? OH, by the way, I did not confuse you with someone else. And right now, you should be doing your Math homework, or Mrs. Smith will get very mad at you and you will get detention. Please leave me a message. I want to know how your exam went Weird Wetland 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Much gratitude for restoring my page. InfernoXV 05:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoskus-sf.jpg

"Jkelly" . . . that's a familiar name. Thanks for the sanity check over that image. Erm, here's a conceivably related "train wreck" that may enthrall you (and don't miss the most recent of the archive pages). Not that it can quite rival this, which is truly offal. -- Hoary 08:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Required

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3_Blocks.2C_one_of_them_one_week_long.2C_and_he_still_doesnt_get_it..... Lukas19 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Hi, User:Java7837 is adding a whole bunch of cats to articles, where the article is already in a cat that is a subcat of the cats that he's adding. I've indicated this to him, but he's ignored me. My understanding that it is not good practice to include but sub- and super-cats in articles as it defeats the whole purpose of categorization. Regards -- Jeff3000 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google images

Hi, I know I promised not to bother you again for a while, but I have just reverted an edit that replaced a photo of George W. Bush with one that seemed to be a joke, and then I looked at the editor's contributions, and I see that he found the image, and at least one other image from Google. I presume that's not allowed. If you're busy, I'm sure someone else will find this in due course. It's even possible that other admins watch your page. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contributions now, I see that the Google image he used for the George W. Bush article has disappeared, so I presume someone has deleted it. ElinorD (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help us out on Christianity?

You suggested the wikibox alternative on the Christianity talk page and were a neutral party in the dispute. As such, some people have requested you make the edit to avoid any problems. Please join us on the talk page to let us know if you would kind enough to do this for us and to discuss what changes will be made. Thank you!! Vassyana 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RV Problem

Thanks for fixing my little revert problem on the article Fascism. My javascript is screwy today... :D Locriani 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should look into whether this edit of yours was a script error or just a mistake on your part. Jkelly 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a script error. Time to reboot. Thanks, again!! Locriani 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nobles

It's the same person. There's a picture on this reference as well as the same details.

"He currently is a medical supervisor at an alcohol/drug facility in Seattle, an American Red Cross First Aid/CPR instructor, an EMT trainer, and holds Board memberships for the King County Mental Health Board, Washington State League of Conservation Voters and Republicans for Environmental Protection."

This isn't a wild guess, I happen to know that it is the same person, and all the information is verfiable to multiple sources. Dave Null 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the same person. A person who posted his own political bio on WP and doesn't want his occult activities known. But the same person. Dave Null 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's probably not notable as either a politician or an occultist. But he is notable as a Republican occultist politician. He's know in the OTO as "the" Republican Thelemite, an unusual combination. Dave Null 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What harm would a less restrictive licence do to Wikipedia?

Hi, I've just noticed that you've moved my popcorn maker to Commons, and it reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask you for some time. I saw on your user page that you agree to licence all your contributions under GFDL, "to avoid further complicating the legal situation of Wikipedia by introducing other licenses, either more or less restrictive". When I tagged the popcorn maker, I really didn't know why I should choose one over another, so it was really a toss of a coin that I chose PD rather than GFDL. Why would having something "less restrictive" than GFDL complicate the legal situation? Sorry if I'm being dense. ElinorD (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. ElinorD (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also section guideline

Thank you for your polite pointer back on feb. 12th. You stated that, "in theory, 'See also' sections aren't supposed to contain links already linked in the actual text." I checked the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, Help:Section et al. I could not find a reference to that policy. I recall reading advice somewhere to avoid repeating every link in the "see also" or "external links" sections.

I try to not over do the "see also" links, but i find it usefull to have a small set of the most relevant related articles in one place, even if they are also linked somewhere up in the text. This is particularly helpfull with long articles where one might skim to find a particular bit of information. This is what i try do provide when i add such links. Let me know if i have missed something, or if you find my linking to be over the top. - Bcharles 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just a reminder

To what are you referring? Adam Bishop 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks. Adam Bishop 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ramone Place

Would you believe I already have Joey Ramone Place? It's on the Ramones page - or you can find it here. If you need something different, then I can re-take it, I live right down the street from it.

Joey Ramone Place

- I haven't downloaded it to the Commons yet; if you do it first, let me know. --DavidShankBone 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. If you give me the location, I can do it - or you can do it. I just got some really good photos today of Angela Bassett and Courtney Vance. I often have to stand with the papparazzi, and they are *really* irritating to listen to - pushy, rude, loud, etc. --DavidShankBone 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed - I went ahead and replaced it on the Ramones page. I like the one with the trees behind it, but I remember I wanted the cross street and that shot wasn't available with trees. In the Spring I'll double-check. --DavidShankBone 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded Woman

Kelly - will you please delete this low-KB photo on the Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:JenniferMillerBeardedWoman.jpg

I don't know who downloaded it at such a crappy size, but the high resolution is found here (I've already removed the low-KB from all projects): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jennifer_Miller_Bearded_Woman_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

I don't know how to delete things off the Commons myself, or even if I have the ability. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Ehrenreich

Could you also get rid of this low-res thing, not in use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbara_Ehrenreich.jpg Thank you. --DavidShankBone 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of discussion in "Protocols..." article

I just asked that if you have an issue with my comments that you address them to my Talk Page and you simply ignored my request and reverted the page.

The reality is that my comments are well within the guidelines for discussion. I urge you to review the guidelines yourself at (WP:TPG).

My info is NOT Original Research. It is merely observational information that is based on fact. This is a basis upon which to improve the article. Also, the article has mistakes, like the mislabelling of some of the chapters. And, there are some chapters that are not discussed at all. In short, the article can be improved and my comments are a statement of fact upon which I would like to gather opinions for performing this improvement.

Next time you want to delete some comments made by someone who obviously spent considerable time writing, it's just common courtesy to post your thoughts on his Talk Page and give him an opportunity to respond. I'm only asking for a little common courtesy. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Jtpaladin 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need an admin!

Hey there, can you move a page for me? I recently found that Mims redirected to Mims (rapper). Seeing that there was also a Mims, Florida article, I changed the redirect page to a disambig page. Apparently this has brought about some strong resistance from another editor - which is fine - but to resolve the situation, "Mims (rapper)" should be moved to "Mims". Why a "(rapper)" page was created in the first place is a mystery to me, but since the rapper and the city articles already link to each other I suppose a disambig page isn't needed. Not 100% certain on that policy, but if you agree that one is not needed, can you please move the page? At the very least we won't have a redirect for no reason. Please and thanks in advance! - eo 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you very much! Mims the word! - eo 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little self-tooting my horn

I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to ask you if you knew about anything, but I thought the notions seemed too fanciful to bother about. Thanks for the tip! I'm totally going to inquire right now - I'll share what I find out. --DavidShankBone 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Advertising Image 2

Dear JKELLY, You may have misunderstood me. My point wasn't about the image of "Ianking". There I wanted to say that If I TAKE AN IMAGE OF THE ADVETISEMENT THEN HOW CAN I make the link? Link means I'm the owner or Something else. (Since I'm the creator) but some person says that poses copyright problem? I hope will answer there.--NAHID 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

Hello, why was the image removed from NSW Resident Medical Officers Association‎ ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charleenmerced (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC). Charleenmerced ^Talk 06:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced[reply]

An ice cream to say thank you

I present this strawberry ice cream to Jkelly for his kindness and patience in answering questions and helping me with image copyright issues, while I was getting established here and at Commons. ElinorD 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkelly. This time, I'm not here to take up any more of your time with questions. I feel like an established user now, and if I don't know something, I can generally figure out where to find the answer. I came here to offer you a strawberry ice cream. I made some in my beautiful machine a few days ago when we had a visitor, and I thought I'd give one each to the three most helpful people I had met here on Wikipedia. So, thanks for all your kindness, and if ever I can help you in any way, please let me know. ElinorD (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for this. While I don't intend to give my full name on Wikipedia, I can assure you it's not Gary Oldman, so I think it will be a bit difficult to find a source for that edit! ElinorD (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on photos

Hey Kelly. Could you give me some guidance: I took some good photos of film directors John Waters and D. A. Pennebaker and put them on their articles. I also put the photographs on the article pages for their movies, reasoning it is their work/art and appropriate to include their photos. It would be like including an image of Leonardo da Vinci on the Mona Lisa article. A few users have removed the photos reasoning the director's image is irrelevant to their movie articles. I disagree, but I also see their point. Any guidance? Does it make a difference if there is no image on the page? This has only been an issue with films. Putting photos of authors on articles about their books (such as Ann Brashares on the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants articles, or Al Franken on his book articles haven't produced any reverts. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reverted the removals once, but won't do so again. Like I said, I understand their point, but I still think the pages are better with the photos. One more thing: I put my name on the image files. I'm doing an experiment with my photos to see how they get used and therefore it's important my photo credit be used (so I can google to find them). First, I want to see how Wikipedia can be used as a place to go for open-use media to the wider web. Second, I like to see how the photos are used, and by whom. Third, some personal satisfaction. So it's important to make sure my credit is used/given. This is why the name is typically found on the file name. On the Ann Brashares articles an editor replaced my "Ann Brashares by David Shankbone" pictures with the same image with my name removed from the file name. Apparently there are duplicate images on the Commons. Do you see any problem with this? There are no self-promotional motivations behind it, and my name never appears in the article nor do Wikipedia pages show up under "David Shankbone" Google searches (except on talk pages). --DavidShankBone 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Fall Out Boy

Whew, ok, good, because I have no friggin clue who the hell any of those guys are. - eo 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Thanks for the heads-up :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Paw

Seems to be Anigozanthus flavidus, see my talk page for discussion--Melburnian 07:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Basis policy?

It seem that Wikipedia should have some kind of policy requiring a person who cites a policy to give a basis, justification, or application of that policy to the material in question. But I can't find it anywhere. So I see people delete material saying only NPOV, POV, or original research (to name a few). The author should be able to undo citing NB (No Basis given for policy).

I mean really, if you add a quote and then cite it from a very popular, well-respected source, and then an active censorer of the article instantly removes it saying only POV with no specifics or basis, even in the talk pages, then what would you do? For example, they say, See Talk, and in Talk page they say only, NPOV. You ask for their reasons for saying that and they say I think its POV. Every inquiry yielding only a general POV citation. Then what? --Landen99 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back!

Thanks for saying hi - I'm still around, just very busy lately, so my wikiing has been super-light. I still monitor things and dablle, but I just don't have time to do much more than that anymore. But anyway, thanks, and happy wikiing! Tuf-Kat 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sinomanicgx1.jpg

You do understand that that unit is a prototype, and this image was released by them for promotional use right? Which is why it has a Promotional tag. So how exactly do you expect me to get a "free" version of a promotional image for a yet unreleased subnotebook? It's not like I substitute a generic image, it's kinda unique. --Basique 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ...

So how would you describe Wiki-world's attitude toward copyrighted material, then? The words that leap to my mind are "hostile," "unwelcome," and "mandated by policy to be replaced, even with lower quality material"... I would hate for someone to read WP:FU and think that the libre aspect of WP:5P is in any way being devalued. Jenolen ^speak it! 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenolen, you making a confusion on the meaning of the term "Copyrighted". "Libre" doesn't imply not-copyrighted.

The opposite of Copyrighted isn't Libre. It is "Public Domain", that is only one kind of Libre. Libre means something anyone can use for any purpose, including distribute, make derivative works, and distribute derivative works. Libre material can only contain very few restrictions on use like (1) requiring attribution or (2) require that derivative works remain Libre. A restriction on who can use the material, for instance, is not acceptable (like "to be used only for educational entities")

What's "unwelcome" and "mandated by policy to be replaced, even with lower quality material" in Wikipedia is non-libre material, like copyrighted "All Right Reserved" material (the rights to copy, execute, distributed, etc. can't stay reserved to the author. It must be given to anyone. Some of the rights, like "attribution", may still be reserved).

Do you realize that all the text from all Wikipedia's articles are copyrighted?

(Sorry for making a forum out of your talk page, JKelly)

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jkelly

No need to apologise. Believe me, much less relevant stuff often winds up on that page, and I don't mind in the least; it being, well, a wiki and all. I had responded, to say much the same thing. As it turns out, we seem to have an example to illustrate the point. Jkelly 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Du'h! As I stalked through your talk pages, I didn't paid attention to the timestamps, and I though that your message to Jenolen came first, and that the above comment from him was an still unanswered question. Well... no harm done, I hope. Just a little mess. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norouz

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on a discussion happening at Talk:Norouz#Merge_2. In the past a consensus was formed that all transliterations of the word "Norouz" should redirect to Norouz, but allow there for a page on Kurdish celebration of Newroz in summary style so that the information doesn't overflow the main page and also allow for information that is unique to the Kurds to remain in Wikipedia. Now a group of editors, who I believe are Iranian, want to merge the articles, in essence removing the extra material that is in Kurdish celebration of Newroz, because they don't believe that the Kurds celebrate it any differently that general Iranians. Regards, -- Jeff3000

Edits

And did you give the same warning to Dalbury? If not then what i have heard about this site is true. Because what do you call it when an Admin REMOVES (and not adds to) my and others material that is heavily validated and verifiable by ALL. Only to add his own "poorly sourced" material that is NOT accessible. Plus if he is truly a good Admin he would have carried the discussion to the talk boards before just removing others hard work. And if you are a good Admin he would have the same warning on his page (which I DO NOT see) Thanks. Rogue Gremlin 20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check, i did not do 3 reverts in one day either, What he did was a MAJOR edit REMOVING hard work actually of other people NOT even me. That WAS sourced, then he did a revert. Instead of leaving the material in a neutral situation until dispute is resolved. An Admin should be held to higeher standards, And for him to just blatantly do what he did, without the SAME warning I received just proves what others say, Along with colleges that now ban the use of WIKI as referenced materialRogue Gremlin 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the fact that all my edit did was basically carry it back to a neutral state until things could be resolved, so the revert just shows favorism Rogue Gremlin 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you just posted is so, then dalbury should be held to the same standards, if not higher. Plus I agreed to a dispute resolution with Dalbury but his EDITS should be held the same as other users. Which is clearly not the case here.Rogue Gremlin 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you revert back to before ALL his edits you can see that paragraph i added back is sourced in the REFERENCES even though it was not my paragraph. I added the sources for it in the references. Plus Dalbury keeps saying in his autobiography it says he was born in michigan. IT does NOT say where he was born in it. it says he lived there as a child. Not to mention i had provided several links that keep getting deleted to, Encyclopedia Britanica, MSN Encarta, and The Georgia Encyclopedia, That clearly state his place of birth as Waycross. As well as the fact that in EVERY interview he has ever given when asked of his birth he clearly states it as Waycross.Rogue Gremlin 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello! I'm one the others in the past who have told this RogueGremlin, formerly AriGold, that he is wrong about Burt Reynolds' birthplace, to no avail. I have put sources up on the discussion page, but I guess I'm not very good at sourcing or computers. I don't have a scanner thing. But there is much genealogical evidence here in Lansing, Michigan where I live to back up the many FACTS presented in his autobiography. Which he put his name on, which means he approved of it. This RogueGremlin believes he owns this page, in my opinion. Lugnut215 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Buck

Hey again. Since I was such a huge help with your Fallout Boy question, I need another favor? Looks like Buck the World (the new Young Buck album) is a protected redirect. Because of this, someone has created Young Buck TBA. Can you get this un-protected and the article moved to the correct location? - eo 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, Thanks!!! - eo 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble at Pope Benedict

Hi, I have a problem with an image that someone keeps adding to Pope Benedict XVI. The image is Image:Ratzinger privat.jpg, and the editor who uploaded it and added it five times today is the newly-registered Paparaz (talk · contribs). I also believe that 201.6.148.141, who added it twice more, is the same person. The image is obviously intended to disparage Pope Benedict, is likely to offend many Catholics, and has a claim of fair use, although it's of a living person and has no source. I tagged the image for speedy deletion, but nothing happened. I don't want to be accused of edit warring, although I think that adding it to that article is borderline vandalism, and at the very least trolling. Could you please have a look into the situation? Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acting so promptly. ElinorD (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit promotional images (...or not really))

Hi, Jkelly. Just read about this recent event, where an image was taken to be promotional but end up to be simply part of some website. The only thing uncommon about this case was that a complaint really was sent to the Foundation, as this kind of misuse of images found on internet is (I would say) the most common invalid fair use claim on Wikipedia.

Shouldn't the source information for images tagged as "promotional" always contain verifiable information on when/where was the image released as promotional?

For instance, some weeks ago I tagged a "promotional" image of a tv serie's character as unsourced, because the only source information it contained was something like "Copyright by XXX". The uploader then updated the source information, explaining the image was download from the serie's official website. Then, I pointed out that, according to the official site's "terms of use", the image wasn't promotional at all. The uploader agreeded, and (as he was an admin) deleted the image.

Right after this episode, I ran through some other articles related to the same tv-serie (there are lots of them!), looking for similar images. I did found some of them with no more source info than "Copyright by XXX", but couldn't fix these images problems, as one editor said {{no source}} wasn't appropriated (because "some" source was given) and other editor said removing the {{promotional}} tag (and tagging as {{no license}}) wouldn't be appropriate (as he deemed them to be acceptable).

What would be the proper thing to do in these cases? Is "Copyright by XXX" enough source information for an image claimed to come from a press kit? If not, what would be acceptable? And if acceptable information can't be provided, should the image be tagged as {{no source}}, {{no license}}, {{ifd}}...?

(I left the details of the above mentioned case blurred on purpose, but if you believe it would help, I could be more specific).

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're sort-of preaching to the choir; this category is a mess (if I recall, the Wikipedia:Signpost quoted me on that quite a while ago). In theory, however, it should not matter whether or not media is actually "promotional" or not, because there is nothing about something having "an implicit license to reproduce [but not modify]" that should matter in terms of en:'s Wikipedia:Fair use criteria policy; the claim ("rationale"), in theory, needs to be just as compelling for this material as it does for any other unfree content. Of course, we are substantially less likely to get contacted by an irked copyright holder if the media really is promotional, but this should be beside the point. In any case, as I am sure you are aware, the board is doing some thinking about the role of unfree media on the various projects, and it may be that we will get some direction on the larger issue at some point in the not-too-distant future. Jkelly 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that from WP:FUC#2, the rationale should always contain an statement like "The use of this image on Wikipedia doesn't affect the original's work value" (that is more or less what's implied from the {{promotional}} tag), but one can't say the original's work value won't be affected without verifiable source info. Like in the case described above, when verifiable source info (the tv-series official site) was addded to the image, it was discovered that by displaying the image we were "replacing the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (as the images was intended to increase official site's value, and not ours).

I'm aware of the good news coming from the board and very happy with their announcement too. Do you really think it isn't worth to dispute such "promotional" images by now? The set of "tv-series-character images copied from official websites as promotional" is quite big. And there a reasonable chance that other kinds of unfree images (like screenshots) would still be accepted in some of theses cases (e.g. non-human characters). A cleanup on this set may be needed regardless of the board final statement. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To take the last point first, you're quite right that we need to take responsibility for cleaning up our messes, and not wait around for some statement from the Board that will magically make problems go away. Your main point is something that we haven't really explored in all of the discussion about unfree media at en:. Most people know, I think, that we should immediately delete any media that comes from stock photo providers, because the commercial impact is very easy to show. Some people are clear that we shouldn't be using media from information content providers, like CNN, AP, or the BBC, because it is difficult to show that our use is transformative and there is an argument that their value is being similarly impacted. Your position is that other websites depend upon having traffic driven to them, and our use may impact that traffic. I have some sympathy for that argument, but it immediately leads to some very big questions, which I would sum up as "should we [uploaders] be worried about Castle Rock vs. Carol Publishing Group"? -- it is not obvious to me why our image use is significantly different than our publishing of text about other people's intellectual property. I think that we would all agree that we are not in the business of entertainment, but instead that we are offering educational material about our subjects, and our use is in that spirit. If our policy is actually followed, this will be immediately obvious; our claim should be so compelling that even the copyright holder wouldn't disagree with it. In practice we have not yet found a very good way to help users make sure that their uploads are following policy. I therefore suggest that the best way forward in cleanup is to do more or less what we do already -- identify any ways in which individual files may fail policy and tag them for deletion, and take questions about use to discussion forums (like talk pages, project pages, or IfD). All of that said, and I've said quite a lot, we need to be clear on what policy actually is -- replaceability has become quite misunderstood. The point with replaceability should not be "Would it be relatively easy to get a freely licensed image", but, instead, "Is this image absolutely irreplaceable for the article" whether by some other image, text, a diagram, etc. This is precisely where we could use some leadership on the issue, because this makes many users unhappy, and will not be agreed with merely through repetition, reminders of our mission, or pointers to the various (fascinating through repugnant) reuse of our material that is already happening. Jkelly 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I will only comment on the "misunderstanding of replaceability" part. I understand and agree with this view of what replaceability should mean in FUC. And I agree that all this huge new enforcement of this rule (since later 2006) is still a light interpretation of what the rule is supposed to mean. The "quick test," at the end of WP:FUC says it all. But this is so ignored that recently one editor asked in good faith on wikipedia talk:fair use if the word "free" wasn't missing there. We've lost the concept of notable images.

I see one area where Wikipedia could improve. In it's evangelism of free content. I started using Linux because it was cool and for-free. As I had to read through documentation, websites, news sources, etc., I got in contact with the Free Software concept, and now I use GNU/Linux because it's Free, and I no longer accept using or creating unfree software. I have been evangelized by the Free Software Foundation. I would like to see people that come to Wikipedia to write about they favorite tv-series or hip-hop band to become free content enthusiast. But that, unfortunately, is not happening a lot. What I see are more and more established users (even many admins) to outspoke their dislike for "free crusaders" and "evil reusers". We should ask what are we doing wrong here.

(Thanks for the always insightful talking.) --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T26withoutturret.jpg and my User Talk Page

Thank you for your assiduousness in going about clarifying the image's status. I believe it falls under fair use for several separate reasons, but in order to try and triple-verify this I've pulled it from the article for the time being. I will attend to it. Please also return to my user page and properly re-format it, if you please, as you put your comment inside my barnstar citation somehow and I don't know how to fix it myself. Thank you. Bullzeye 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My uploaded images

• I tagged a bunch of images I had uploaded with {{db-author}}, whilst also removing my previously added fair use rationale. Though it may not be the perfect db-speedy tag for this purpose, it works. If you have a chance, feel free to go through my latest contribs and delete those newly-tagged images. If not, I'm sure some other Admin will notice it. Hope this helps. Yours, Smee 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Route 82's images

Thank you so much for your help. I'm a little confused though, it seems the two of us are reading WP:CSD#I7 in two different ways. If you could clarify your interpretation either on WP:ANI (where I've explained mine) or my talk page, I'd much appreciate it. (The short version, I believe {{Replaceable fair use}} can be applied to older images.) -- NORTH ^talk 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, glad all is clear now. -- NORTH ^talk 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press Corps

Hey Kelly - Is there any way you can help me get an accreditation program set up for the Commons? I just returned from Wikinews, where I was summarily shown the door and told that the Commons should get its own accreditation program. I think they are right.

By the way, I just received this message from Billy Name:

BILLY NAME to me 10:43 pm (9 minutes ago) it's ok with me if you want to schedule a portrait shoot, but you'll have to do it up here at my place in poughkeepsie, ny (last stop on metro north line from grand central). i'm honored by your offer. let me know what you have in mind. best, billy name.

--DavidShankBone 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of ice cream maker on French wikipedia

Hi, you may have guessed that I'm interested in ice cream and ice cream makers, etc. I have edited the article ice cream maker and have added an image of my machine. I have also registered an account with French Wikipedia, and have added my machine to the article there. I was able to do that because (at your suggestion), I had started uploading my own images to Commons rather than here.

That French ice cream maker article has an image of the kind of ice cream maker that you put in the freezer, closing the door over the wire, and leaving the paddles to go round until the ice cream is ready. (Incidentally, I don't recommend that type at all; mine is much better!) I'd like to upload that image to Commons, so that I can add it to the English Wikipedia article.

I want to be sure that I follow the procedures correctly. I know you uploaded my popcorn maker to Commons, and tagged the English Wikipedia one with: {{NowCommons|month=February|day=24|year=2007|1={{{1|Image:Popcornmaker.jpg}}}}} If I upload it to Commons, do I have to tag the original with something like

{{MaintenantCommons|mois=mars|jour=9}} etc.,

or do I leave it in English? I've already noticed that when adding images to French Wikipedia, editors leave things like "thumb" and "left" in English. There are a couple of other issues/questions:

1. The current title of the image is Image:Sobetière 001.jpg. "Sobetière" is not a word: it should be "Sorbetière". I'd like to correct it when uploading it to Commons. Obviously I'd check the French Whatlinkshere and fix any links as necessary.
2. The user uploaded it with the description: "Photographie de ma sorbetière autonome." It's not a "sorbetière autonome", since it doesn't have its own inbuilt freezing element. It's a "sorbetière simple". My machine is a "sorbetière autonome". Am I supposed to copy the description that the original uploader gave?
3. The uploader tagged it as "CC-BY-SA". I suppose if I'm copying the image exactly, I just copy the tag, but I'd actually like to crop it first. I don't have any expertise in picture editing, but I can take a few centimetres off the edges, and usually do with my own images. This one, I think, needs to be cropped at the top and the right, to remove empty containers from the background, and put the ice cream maker more in the centre. Does it introduce extra complications if I take off the edges?
4. The editor doesn't appear to be active at the moment. Am I supposed to contact him/her out of courtesy, since I want to crop the image, change its title, and change its description? (I suppose I could send an e-mail.)

I don't want to put you to any extra trouble (and certainly not to the amount of trouble that the length of this post would suggest!), but I wonder if you could simply warn me if you predict from this that I'm walking into a mess, or if you could look through it after I've done it, to make sure that I haven't botched up anything. Thanks (as usual), and there's absolutely no hurry with this. I'd also like to add content (i.e. text) to the ice cream maker article. The image isn't urgent at all. ElinorD (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've uploaded Image:Sorbetière.jpg at Commons, both in the original version and in a cropped version. I'm afraid the file history is longer than it should be, because when I was trying to look at an earlier version, I accidentally reverted back to it, and had to revert my revert! I've tagged the original image at French Wikipedia, and have added the new one to Ice cream maker here, and to Sorbetière at fr. It would be kind if you'd take a look at the file at commons, to check that I've done everything properly. ElinorD (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for this. :) ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Route 82

As someone more familiar with Wikipedia's image policy than me, you may want to respond to Route 82's recent comment on Image talk:Route 55 (1969).jpg (and elsewhere), claiming he has permission to use the images on Wikipedia from the copyright owner. -- NORTH ^talk 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about images

At this link [10] (dsal.uchicago.edu/images) it describes its image use policy. Could you tell me if images from here are eligible for Wikipedia? Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading it more closely it sounds like no. So, never mind. Thanks anyway. --Mattisse 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have seen some of the soldier's photos somewhere, perhaps on Wiki Commons. Maybe that was another WWII Soldier. As you say, it would be insightful to try. And I might learn something. Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds

A Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds' birthplace has been opened at Talk:Burt Reynolds#Request for Comment. -- Donald Albury 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three recent image-related issues

I seem to have run into three image-related issues. One, the NZ Crown copyright thing, I think you're aware of.

Another relates to Fair Use condition #9: can only be used in articles. This normally means they are removed on sight from templates, so I'm wondering whether they could be limited by a namespace check to only appear in articles. Couldn't seem to get people past the "never in templates" response, so modified {{Evanescence}} as a test case. The image currently there is not the logo (which is actually another issue - is that image free if it is "inspired" by the logo?), but I'm still wondering if the approach in the template might be tolerable, and what would be needed to make it comply with policy. What exactly *is* a fair use claim for a logo, because I don't really find it essential to have a sports or band logo in most articles, except when the logo has changed and this history is discussed.

Finally, it appears that "discography" pages are currently being targetted as if the album covers were galleries of fair use images. This is upsetting a number of editors of music articles at the moment. Are these allowed, and if so what needs to be done for compliance? Gimmetrow 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, might I get an opinion on this image. Is there any chance the uploader is the professional photographer who took the photo? Gimmetrow 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. The user who uploaded the last image is continuing to upload images without response. A couple articles will have a few redlinks in a week, and we'll have to find the original image and caption again. It's a pain.

The Evanescence thing isn't over. The "inspired" image is now listed at IfD. Don't suppose you would like to comment?

As for discography, WP:MUSTARD says don't use album covers, but then says "this is disputed". WP:FU says that cover art may not be used for "identification without critical commentary". Some music editors understand this to mean that it's OK for indentification with critical commentary, and that critical commentary "of the album" suffices (ie, not just of the cover art).

I suppose the large quantity of bad images results in a certain sort of behaviour from the editors who deal with images. I don't really envy them. However, this approach seems to be causing undue problems. A nice clear message from the top and editors would likely get into line on their own, with the adversarial approach. Gimmetrow 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two images involved in the Evanescance debate. The specific graphic files were created by a wikipedian and are hosted at commons. One image replicates the band logo, and this is used in the band article. It *was* used in a navigation template also, until I experimented with noinclude in the template and someone noticed. The other image is in the same font as the band logo, and is currently used in user boxes. In order to cut the edit warring over the actual logo, I put the userbox image in the article navigation template, assuming that it was a "free" image. Now, for reasons I still don't understand, someone has put up the userbox image for deletion. Gimmetrow 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thanks again for taking the time to provide rational, non-confrontational response. I would give you a barnstar if I could think of one someone else hasn't already given. Gimmetrow 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use question for Ali Khamenei

Hi, you were recommended for this sort of fair use question. Considering that Ali Khamenei is the leader of a nation, I think that there should be a picture of him. But there is not. Can this picture from the leader's home page be considered fair use if used [11]? The Behnam 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Old Farmer's Almanac

Hello,

I am an employee of Yankee Publishing, Inc., of Dublin, New Hampshire.

Two months ago, I volunteered to update the Wikipedia listing for The Old Farmer’s Almanac – a publication owned by my employer.

I am contacting you because you have previously edited this listing.

I have endeavored to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to the best of my knowledge and ability, and would appreciate your input on the RFC I posted today on the Almanac’s discussion page.

Best, NH-Nemesis 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in Template

I saw your comment [12] at Template:Fair use in and this is very possible. The question is: what do you want to happen and where? It could be a category (if so, which one?) or even put a speedy deletion tag on the image, using CSD #7 "Invalid fair-use claim" as the reason, since, it seems to me, they aren't really claiming what article it's fair use in and as such is malformed. But I can see the category method as well. Let me know what your thoughts are and what you'd like and I should be able to whip it up fairly fast. Getting an admin to edit the template(s) (fair use in2-5) to include this would be the tricky part. --MECU≈talk 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Mecu/FairUseInTest (and the talk page really for the example usage). Not including a first variable will have it include that category that shows up at the bottom. Really just had to add {{#if:{{{1|}}}| |[[Category:Blank fairusein licensing]]}} between the includeonly's at the bottom to get this to work. If you're fine with the name of the category can set it up. Could also add a big box that tries to grab the attention of the uploader saying they didn't use the template properly and to fix it as well. --MECU≈talk 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please take a look at let me know. The font size might be a little big. If you think so, turning it down to 2em works well, I think. --MECU≈talk 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Flickr images

Is there something that's supposed to happen with Flickr images that have had the licenses changed or have been deleted? Specifically, I'm working on the article Love. Angel. Music. Baby., which uses this image that was deleted from Flickr. It was uploaded by Extraordinary Machine, so I'm sure that the license was valid, but without any evidence of that, what happens to the image? ShadowHalo 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA fair use

Well, I think that WP:FAC could do a better job at filtering improper fair use. Hopefully these things will be more clear after the Board passes its resolution on a project-wide licensing policy.--Eloquence* 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Thanks!! No, I had not seen that yet. Reading it now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the 3RR comment

If the use of fair-use images would be a "potential copyright infringement", Wikipedia would be a potential copyright infringement. Almost all the article (with images) use fair-use images. Examples, anime, music, movies, science, technology, art (and a lot or more topics) article use fair-use images, because free-use image don't exist for most of the article from this topics. Anime...does it exist a free-use image of a cover of an OVA? Music...Does it exist a free-image of a copyrighted logo or album cover? Tech...Does it exist a free-use image of de Microsoft logo, or a Windows XP screenshoot, no! Armando.O^talk • Ev 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20061016 02.jpg

Could you help me to find out the correct fair use template from here. Then after I can replace that template for other similar Sri Lankan pictures, as a help for you guys. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^walkie-talkie 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I choose the {{HistoricPhoto}} was, in the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use#Other says for unique, famous historical photographs. Since that bomb attack killed 103 unarmed Sri Lanka Navy sailors, as a Sri Lankan, that picture is obviously notable to me and other Sri Lankan in here because this incident was the largest casualty number from one attack. On the Wikipedia side, this is one of the biggest terrorist incident.

The picture that you are going to delete is the remains of the bomb laden truck. So isn't unique or historical? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^walkie-talkie 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly have no dog in this fight, but we generally have permitted non-repeatable and historical news photos - The Hindenburg, Elian Gonzales, various terror attacks; are you saying now that those articles have to be about the photo in order for the fair use claim to be Wikipedia valid? This seems to be a dangerous overinterpretation... Jenolen ^speak it! 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move gripe

This moan of mine seems to have fallen on deaf ears (pardon the cliche); could you possibly take a look? Thank you! -- Hoary 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protection of Sinbad (actor)

Re your message: I semi-protected for a week when I enabled protection. I was wondering if there was some strange thing going around on him: some type of coordinated attack, but I guess it's more like a bad rumor email going around. Hopefully the email was stop spreading after a week. Didn't know the Foundation (?) was getting email about it. -- Gogo Dodo 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Great... I went back a bit further in the history to triple check things and the correct revision is now is place. It all started with 167.7.17.3 (talk · contribs). I thought maybe the Talk page was going to get out of hand next, but it seems to have settle down. I added the article to my watchlist as you suggested; a sleeper account arrived, but then reverted himself. -- Gogo Dodo 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem

That guys got anger issues, though. Sheesh. Natalie 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk, Jkell! Real96 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for intervention of Greeks

Thanks for undoing Domitius' removal of Hellenistic polytheism from Greeks Thegreyanomaly 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Domitius will be willing to keep removing it. He is ardent that there are only 2,000 of them when a NPOV source (MSNBC) has stated there are 100,000. Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on promophotos

A few situations have me thinking about how promophotos work on WP. It seems that in a lot of cases, WP is not following the promophoto license, and since they are treated as "fair use" it doesn't seem like WP is even claiming to follow them? So why bother tagging images as such? The only reason I can see is that it partially contributes to the fair use claim. WP could use any image that is necessary to illustrate a subject, but a promophoto is preferable (if it exists) because, by its status, using it presumably doesn't harm the rights of the copyright owner in the way that other images might. Is this a fair assessment?

The reason I ask is that recently, some of the image specialists are saying that an image tagged as promophoto must be deleted if it cannot be proven to be a promophoto. This relates partially to Image:Ld02.jpg, which was deleted as "no source", when the uploaded did explain the source - a press kit from a long time ago, scanned by the uploader. Another image was a promophoto, but it's old and no longer available online from the original source (probably because they don't promote old events) - the image is available on a major fansite, however, which identifies it as a promo. I'm tempted to contact the original copyright holder to ask for a clear license (they do have an archive department), but if they were to say it is released under a non-commercial license for publicity (as I think they typically do for fan sites), would this have any effect on a fair use claim?

I tend to think we should trust the uploader's word when it's plausible, but on the other hand, a while back I reverted an addition of an unsourced, unlicensed image by a new user to an article. The image summary suggested the user might be the publicist. A few days later the image re-appeared as licensed PD with a Danny stamp of approval. This user/publicist hasn't edited since, so I suspect had it not been reverted then, the image would have slowly been deleted for lack of source, and the publicist probably wouldn't have noticed for months.

Finally, what is your opinion of the practice of certain people of targetting the logs of people they are in dispute with? I feel particularly bad that a couple images, where I removed some vandalism to the image, were put up for deletion simply because I was having a dispute with one of the image specialists (also regarding an image I didn't upload). Gimmetrow 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now my turn to complain about a disambig page - Advice needed

Hi there. Not sure how to handle this - Erasure (the band) was just moved from "Erasure" to "Erasure (band)". A disambiguation page was instead created at "Erasure". One other article (besides the band) is now listed - for "Erasure (logic)" - which I assume is in the process of being created. I want to contest this. I've stated my reasons for this on the "Erasure (band)" Talk Page (which, by the way, doesn't seem as if it was moved correctly). Of course now I am unable to move "Erasure (band)" back to "Erasure". The band article has about a trillion articles linking to it so I really feel this should have been discussed first. Is there a way the band article can be moved back to "Erasure" - at least until some discussion can occur and a consensus can be reached? - eo 14:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offer an opinion?

Hi, I am having a disagreement with a user who has taken on one page and seems to have idiosyncratic views on original research and NPOV. Could you visit and offer us some comments? I have filed a WP:RFC. The discussion is at: Talk:Christian_right#The_term_.22Christian_Right.22 Hope you have the time. Thanks. --Cberlet 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church_of_San_Giovanni_Evangelista

Well I have followed through on your suggestion to make better appearance and the second article. Hello once again I need help editing an article! This time I tried to write Church_of_San_Giovanni_Evangelista but of course it needs much improvement.

Well, what is the next step!!?? AndrewEditor 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]