Like pictures to put on people's pages. Where can you download the pictures from? Julianster {Julianster} 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well there are many ways. I'd recommend to use Flickr. However, you have to be sure it's a free image & please see our image use policy. Wikipedia can't use such content otherwise, at least it should not be an unfree image on living BLP's, but there are some rare exempt. See Madeleine McCan for an example where it's unknown if she is still a living person. Otherwise such copyrighted content not under a free license will likely fail criteria 1 of the non-free content policy. That being said, I'd recommend you to see this question & my answer. I think that one pretty much sums up how to find free content at Flickr. Last note, be sure not to upload unfree images of people. If you're still unsure go ahead & ask me to clarify further! It's my pleasure helping you. --Kanonkas (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have to be sign up to get the free image? How do you know if it is a free image? Julianster {Julianster} 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No you don't have to sign up to search for free images on Flickr, but it's handy. Well generally when the image has appropriate licensing, here are the ones that Commons accept (see the table below):
Now that you know the appropriate licenses, I'll continue with how we find images. You want to click on this link for the search engine part, so we can modify the searches. Let us try to do a search on Jessica Simpson. You will now have to put the search word, which in this case is "Jessica Simpson" withoute the qoutes. After that, scroll down the page to the Creative Commons part. Click on "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" also click on "Find content to use commercially" and at last click on "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". That should result in you getting this link. Now it's the part to see if the "free content" really is free. On the link I gave you, I know the first two [1][2] images on the search result page are genuine free images & can be uploaded on Commons. As the two first images are licensed under a free license. Both of the images have a CC license & are under cc-by-2.0. You can see the license by checking the "Additional Information" on both of the images. You'll see a link, which directs to this page explaining what license the image have. Now let us continue checking the search result page. The third image is not free. Many people think that, if one has bought a poster, and they take a picture of it, it's theirs, and they can distribute it under whatever license they want. Commons does not usually allow such derivative work, except in cases where the poster is not the main part of the image. Also while checking for images, be sure to check the flickr author! This guide is useful to read. Feel free to ask again if the above was a little confusing, a little long reply. --Kanonkas (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Special:Upload. Click "browse" (browse to the file, in this case image then click "open". Now "Destination filename:" should have the image name, however you want to change that to a more descriptive name. In this case we're choosing to use "Jessica Simpson.jpg" without the qoutes as the file name. However, if you get a warning that the file already exits, then you'll have to give it a new name. Maybe "Jessica Simpson in 2008.jpg". The extension filename depends on the image, but it's usually JPEG. --Kanonkas (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (File:Pueblo Community College seal.gif)
You've uploaded File:Pueblo Community College seal.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the VG project talk page. Searching the discussion archives is now much easier.
Feature: Video game notability
Video game related articles fall under niche categories on Wikipedia: "Culture and the arts" and "Everyday life". Because of this, they are often required to demonstrate notability more than other topics. Wikipedia defines notability as "worthy of notice", and considers it distinct from fame, importance, and popularity. Though it is acknowledge to be related to fame and the like, it is important understand that being famous, important, or popular does not mean a video game article should be on Wikipedia.
Being notable means that a topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia's policy also stipulates that this only presumes to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that though an article may meet the criteria on paper, it is up to the community to decide if a topic truly is notable and/or violates other policies such as WP:NOT. In short, just because a video game, character, or related topic exists, does not mean it should also exist as a Wikipedia article.
Dealing with non-notable topics
Articles that do not meet the criteria are either deleted or merged into a relevant topic.
WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) handles the deletion of non-notable articles, among other types, and has an established process to begin discussions about reasons for deletion.
If an article is a subarticle of a larger topic, merging it into the larger topic article is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. It would benefit both topics, the character and its video game, to include the content into the article of the video game; essentially using a small, weaker article to strengthen a larger more notable article.
Things to remember
The best way to show notability is to provide reliable sources about the topic.
Notability is less about keeping articles out of Wikipedia and more about making sure readers are provided articles about significant, quality topics.
While you may think a topic is notable, others may disagree. Try to keep a clear perspective when assessing notability so discussions can reach a consensus.
AfD is more of a last resort and is not always the best course of action to take.
Consider starting a merger discussion first, as some editors may not fully understand why an article they started is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Ryan Postlethwaite would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ryan Postlethwaite to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
~~~~ has given you a large glass of wine, for assisting with a several number of things. Wine somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, cool, refreshing goodness of milk by adding something nice to their talk page with a friendly message.
I believe that my link www.lorain.com provides valuable content to your site visitors. Lorain.com serves all of Lorain County, OH. I am only posting links to the areas that we provided content for. So why would my links not be allowed on theses pages of Wikipedia! I'm not interested in the search engine rankings. I appreciate your time and thank you for your candor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loraincom (talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I'm not sure who or where to go to talk to someone. Do you have a contact? It's not that big of a deal, but I do feel that your site visitors would benefit from my link. Best Regards (Loraincom (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hey you made it! I would personally like to congrat you on WP:100 RFA that closed at 109/0/1. You obviously have the trust of the community. Well done! — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn...I was going to support your RfA when I saw it had already been closed! Oh well, consider this an extra support. :) Best wishes. Acalamari17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have filled everything in the upload form, then you don't do anything after. Sorry, but the question is a little unclear. Would you mind explaining a little more? --Kanonkas : Talk 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this. You might want to rethink this, I was just marking the report as stale when you blocked the IP; a block doesn't appear to be appropriate, especially as it was a one time incident that occurred nearly a month ago, and will likely only impact legitimate users now. — neuro(talk)18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kanonkas has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kanonkas's day]]!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kanonkas!
The've been doing this for a good time now. Just see their talk page. However, I think we have a good editor here who just doesn't know the "rules". It's hard when they don't respond, but I doubt they're going to stop for now. Worth a try. If they continue with this here, despite the warnings then I think a block would be in order, unfortunately. --Kanonkas : Talk 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question was more about general strategy, not this specific user. This situation seems to come up a lot. Your call how you want to handle this specific user. I tend to be extremely intolerant of repeated copyright violations of any sort though. --NrDg02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well as you say above, I'd speedy the obvious copyright violations. Give them a note, if they continue maybe a final warning. If they seem to listen & try to improve then that's good. However, if they don't change after the final then yes a block could be in order. What do you think? --Kanonkas : Talk 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan. I note that User talk:Jak3m has already received lots of guidance so I would tend to be less patient. See if he responds and interacts with you - if so maybe he will mend is ways. I would, however, presume that all images uploaded with a claim of his ownership are copyvios based on catching him in a lie for one of them. I would have probably issued a {{uw-copyright}} warning with a stern admonition about lying and another pointer to WP:IUP for his reading pleasure. --NrDg03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belated congratulations
Congratulations mate! I told you there would be no problems at all with you! I'd normally suggest that you take a look at the new admin school, but you clearly know how to use the tools. Just go slow at first with them and branch out when you've had a bit of experience of adminship on en.wiki. If you ever need anything, you know where to find me. Again, well done! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter14:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] Abderraouf Jdey
I used rollback when it seemed to be vandalism, when he continued to remove it, I reverted to using "Undo" and leaving an edit summary stating that he shouldn't remove sourced information. Sherurcij(speaker for the dead) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citations 17 and 18 respectively, more can be added if you want. But ManualOfStyle-nazis always complain when/if I put citations in the "Intro" paragraph - and insist that citations go in main body, while intro summarises what is already cited in main body. Sherurcij(speaker for the dead) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We might get lucky and someone might actually find a free-use photo and want to name it properly. Until then this makes a great watchlist location for uploads on non-free use stuff. I don't think salting this name will do much to stop invalid uploads - they will just use a minor variation to get around it. Of course the free-use stuff should be at this name on commons. --NrDg18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm in salting the title. I just liked the honeypot aspect of it for catching other non-free-use uploads which is why it was on my watchlist. It is probably better if a valid uploader were to give it a more descriptive name than just "Miranda Cosgrove". Does commons salt titles? Just curious. --NrDg22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. First of all, good to see you busy yourself at RFPP, it needs some help once in a while. Just a short notice: You should try to be informative in your responses. For example, with this response you gave the impression that you semi-protected it indefinitely, while in fact Ruslik0 protected it with an expiry time. You might want to use {{RFPP|ap}} in cases where another admin already protected the article. If you use Steel's protection.js, it has the option below move-protected (and it allows you to add the admin's name). Keep it up and btw, congrats on your promotion ;-) SoWhy17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at what user/junglebrother has to say about all this. [3] I don't think Banigul and Nisarkand are same people. Nisarkand told me he is 100% positive that Banigul is someone else. Also, please tell user:kingturtle and user:tajik not to revert the checkuser until investigation is completed, tajik is creating socks and getting away with it, he is also using annon IPs that start with 82, 84 and 88 which are all located in the same exact location and edit-warring with same exact POVs as user/tajik. I.e. labelling everyone as ethnic tajik when they are not, harshly degrading other ethnic groups, always claiming that Afghanistan was created in late 1800s when that is untrue. Look, tajik claims to be Afghan but he is critizing everything about Afghanistan and its people with the most negative view you can image, why are such people allowed to edit Wikipedia?--Tytooring (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kanonkas. You've issued a short block of ABH. From taking a look at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx (2nd) I conclude that there is a match on style features between ABH and Brexx, according to the list provided in Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Brexx. I'd be willing to modify your block on ABH to indefinite based on the new SSP report if you don't object. I would then update the results section of the SSP accordingly. Let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to all involved in this since I'm the one that started WP:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx (2nd). I have not yet completed the case nor have I transcluded it because of some edit re-assignment issues I've been having with regards to my recent username change. I was hoping to have the case completed (with additional information which I believe proves me correct) once my name change is complete. Until then, I leave it open to any administrator to use the half-completed SSP case as an informal guide to decide whether or not ABH is, indeed, a sockpuppet. But I would ask everyone to please not transclude the case just yet because I believe it to lack irrefutable proof of my accusations and, should it be rejected by an uninvolved administrator, I don't want to run afoul of forum shopping by filing another case for the same suspect.
Hello SWik78. In my opinion, your evidence is sufficient. Put in what you know, and if admins find it's not convincing, they will respond in the SSP itself. You would then have additional time to answer their questions if you need it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, I thought that Anywhere But Home had since been blocked.
Also, frankly, the edits didn't really add anything to the article and were messy (which has since been brought up by other editors). I didn't plan to involve myself any further and haven't. HalfShadow23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't threaten me, please; it accomplishes nothing. I freely admitted it was an error on my part. And for someone who has only been an admin for three days you seem fairly certain you won't make them yourself. HalfShadow18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just dropped by the block log and I noticed you've done a lot of them. Please remember that users can also see the message you give as a reason (especially if you give an additional IP block), care should be taken for the message to make sense to uninvolved editors. Please make sure your block messages are a little bit more descriptive. - Mgm|(talk)13:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I absolutely support deleting the talkpages of users, User:Ajsgeek was blocked less than 24 hours ago. Maybe you want to leave the pages for a bit longer before deleting them to allow the user to ask for an unblock. Thinking of an arbitrary time period, how about a week? I can understand deleting these pages, but I think it should be after more than a day. --Terrillja talk02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The normal time period before deleting is 30 days after the last edit. In any case, deleting these pages manually is not necessary. An adminbot cleans out the category on a regular basis. Mr.Z-man02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion is the fact that CAT:TEMP is a deletion drop down option, which insinuates that admins should be deleting pages in CAT:TEMP. Obviously, this is really not needed now as a bot does it, but Kanonkas probably did not know. Either way, we need to make it clearer that if a admin is going to delete per CAT:TEMP, then the page should at least be 30 days old, but generally they should not be deleting per that at all as a bot does so. Also, maybe we need to remove CAT:TEMP as a common reason for deletion. Tiptoetytalk04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this should not have elevated rights, doppelgänger accounts are not meant to be used? RichFarmbrough, 16:16 23 January 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the thought, it was nice, but I don't intend to use this account at all (except for testing). I only log in while I'm at home, and that IP has no reason to be hardblocked or on vandal patrol. ;) Best regards, PeterSymonds (talk)16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do not usually grant alternative accounts userrights unless they are actually going to be using them. I know many alternative accounts used by administrators who never do ACC work, or have a need for rollback...as such they do not grant their alternative account those rights. As for doppelgängers, they should never have any flags for security reasons. Honest mistake though, Tiptoetytalk19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Miley Cyrus See You Again.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus See You Again.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Kanonkas. Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good looking out on my talkpage (and a belated congrats on getting adminship too :D). Can you do patrol duty on there for the near future? Shouldn't be more than a couple weeks or so. — east718 | talk | 14:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanonkas, we seem to have an ongoing issue with User:Jak3m uploading images and in many cases claiming them as his own, when they clearly are not. Have you had any luck communicating with this user? I believe it is imperative that we act to stop this, or else risk a potential copyright mess. If it is clear this user is knowingly making false copyright claims despite warnings, you should impose a permanent block. As you are the admin most familiar with this issue, I'd leave this to your discretion. Let me know if you need any help. Owen×☎17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have tried to communicate with him. NrDg just left another note. I have a feeling we are going nowhere, unfortunately. This user has been here for a while, but they haven't really "communicated" back. We may be losing a contributor here, but I think we've done what we can here. I think we have to draw a line, enough is enough in this case. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest giving him a day or so to respond to the latest notes - I asked him to upload his jpg with EXIF so need to give him a chance to do so. As per his user page he is in the UK so can't expect immediate response. His images are not in any articles so copyright exposure to wiki is limited particularly with the notices on the image pages (I believe this counts as fair use of the images for investigatory purposes). I left the proven copyvio alone as it is evidence for the other images. I did look for the "twins" image on normal wire service sites - there are lots of similar posed images in Wireimage and Getty but the camera angle on his picture is offset so it is slightly possible he was a press photog in the press scrum taking the posed pictures although he seems not to remember where the picture was taken. If he ignores all this or obstinately just re-adds the pictures to the articles I suggest you delete all the pictures and leave a copyright violation notice on his page as a final warning. If he does this again then immediately block at that time. I personally don't like to issue blocks without a final warning in place. (Also suggest looking at the edit history of his user page for insights on the likelihood he took these pictures). --NrDg20:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just issued him with a final warning. Feel free to edit/expand on the warning if I missed anything. I doubt we'll see an EXIF or a response from him, but at least we tried. Owen×☎20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've uploaded images that aren't free. I believe you should read what I told you here before uploading more images. Regarding Photobucket, no. Please do not upload images that you find just on Photobucket. Most of the time they are just copyright violations. --Kanonkas : Talk 08:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Message from User Srirangam99 - Article on Chola Dynasty
Sir, this is regarding neutral mediation by Sebastian Helm on the disputes within the Chola Dynasty article. If you see the discussion page of the article Sebastian Helm has been deputed to be the neutral administrator who would resolve disputes and at the beginning itself, after notifying Sebastian put out a table in which he indicated the corrections, additions or deletions he wanted to carry in that article. The first step he took was that he added a list of Chola kings to the existing list among the great or important kings of this empire.
However, user YellowMonkey entered that article on 5th or 6th February and in the name of removing broken links he deleted precisely the names of those very kings that were added by the neutral admin Sebastian Helm. While users and non-admins like us were perfectly ok with the intervention and certain actions of Sebastian because he was a neutral admin. we also had six months time to come up with our own sources and other references for contributing to as well as removing unwanted portions in that article. the action of user YellowMonkey is a trifle puzzling to me. I have informed neutral admin Sebastian Helm also.
Pls. check this link for appropriate action as you consider fit.
User talk:Sweet Autumn Misery was blocked as a sock of User:Gerald Gonzalez due to similar edit patterns including flickr washing. He was unblocked as he was able to convincingly argue that he wasn't a sock. On his en wiki talk page he admits to flickr washing images to commons. He is using the same user name on commons and has uploaded 13 images 2 of which have been deleted. All his images on commons are likely copyvios. --NrDg17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for banning the vandals that I posted at WP:AIV...I had to track their contributions to make sure they didn't continue their little plot :D Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kanonkas, I remember you were the blocking admin for this user and have done some work at his sockpuppet case. I just wanted to let you know, the user recently sent me an e-mail (he was under the false impression that I was an admin) with a large amount of personal information (IP, physical address, screen names on instant messagers and youtube and other groups) about another user (or, at least, a user who he thinks is this person). I don't know if you or other people involved in the case have been getting e-mail like that...if this user has been sending this kind of information to more people than just me, do you think it might be appropriate to block his account from sending e-mail?
In the meantime, I have left him pointers administrators he can contact (including you), and specific instructions not to send anyone this personal information unless an admin/checkuser explicitly asks for it. Politizertalk/contribs00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did get an e-mail from Combatant. How many users he has e-mailed is something I can't know. A CheckUser can find such info, though. At this time I have disabled e-mail due to privacy reasons. I'll contact a CheckUser. Thank you, Politizer. --Kanonkas : Talk 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing here is disable email on him and all his socks. Finding out how many he's sent is possible but won't be of much use. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
