Hi Zach, User:Bolanon would like to upload the IHMS Hymn to the article. He is asking for help with conversion from mp3 to ogg. He will be sending you the mp3, I will also send you my copy for backup. Please help. I explained in email the notability aspect. There are also no problems with copyrights...--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. While asking a question about a flag issue, I was given your name as the Wikipedia flag expert. I was working on the Gallery of confusable flags and found that the flag of the Comoros from 1975-1978 didn't exist in the Commons like all the other flags. The only already-produced image I could find in my admittedly cursor search was one on a site that gave permission for non-commercial use (a no-no for Wikipedia, as I quickly found out). Since it was a relatively easy design I used autoshape in Powerpoint to manufacture my own gif, but I understand that there are special legal rules regarding copyrighted flags, to the effect that a self-manufactured version of a flag is not necessarily looked upon as the work of the person who manufactured it. Can you give me any help, whether it be peace of mind that my version is legal, or (much more unlikely) point me towards the copyright holder of the Comoran flag from 1975... I appreciate any help you might be able to give, and I'm just happy to talk to a flag expert at all.
I can make an SVG graphic of it tomorrow, since it would be easy to do. I personally believe the copyright holder of the flag image I could contact easily, but from my experience in talking to my other flag buddies at FOTW, they do not want their images to be used commercially. I hope this helps. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)11:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I really don't think so. The article looks way better :) I just don't have time (or brainpower) to get involved... BTW, could you send me an email? My username + gmail.com? Renata06:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zach, you did beautiful work on that recreation of the round arms. I have added material from the Spanish Wikipedia, hope it meets your approval. They apparently got it from http://www.turkmenistanembassy.org/turkmen/history/emblem.html , which I have also sourced, then went to it. It's kind of good that I translated it from the Spanish, which they translated from English, so it reads similar but is not in any way a copyvio.
Say, I have been admiring your Belarus graphics, you're one of the most skilled graphics guys I have seen, do you take requests? You've helped out on several Scouting articles, most have good graphics, some in particular could use your handiwork.
Thanks for the Christmas greetings, I wish for the same to you. As for the Turkmenistan article, it looks good. I found the round arms strange, but I should have looked first before I shot my mouth off. As for requests, tell me what you need and I can make it happen. Might take a few days, but it can be done. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image help
A short while back you helped me with a user who was upset about me removing a fair use image from his user page. I was wondering if I could get your opinion again. Pebs96 (talk·contribs) uploaded Image:VitorRibeiroTelles-n-Quiver.jpg this photo as a copyrighted image. In this thread, Talk:Bloodless bullfighting#I am the photographer of some of the images, the photographer said he releases all rights of the photos he takes to Pebs96 as she operates the company/website he takes the photos for. Now Pebs96 has specified on the photo's summary page that the photos can only be used in particular articles of her desire. She has added it to the 3 pages specified in her summary. It has since been removed from two of the articles as non-fair use (one was to demonstrate the color of horses and the other a breed of horse), but it remains in the article on the subject of the photo. However, she's also added it to her own user page as well. There's been a lot of history between me and Pebs96, so I know if I remove it from her user page, she'll get pretty upset with me since she'll say that she can do that since it's her own copyright.
So this user is the creator of the image she uploaded. There is plenty of things she did incorrectly. First off, she didn't see this "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under a free license or release it into the public domain." She is not allowed to upload it as fair use at all, since she created the images. Second, she cannot dictate where the photos are being used at all. Third, I believe there are free photos we can find on flickr of these horses, so these fair use photos can be removed in a few days. I am going to remove the fair use photos from her userpage now. If she has any problems, have her come to my userpage and point her to this discussion. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those photos are not only just mine, but we own the horses as well. And no, you won't find these particular horses on Flickr either.... I just checked and I don't upload my photos on Flickr because we have our own dedicated website for them. I described "where" these photos are going in on the photo page because the "Fair Use 3" allows it to be used on "3" articles. I really don't understand why Metros232 is causing so much trouble and is "picking" on "everything" that I do. I know that I can have photos that I've uploaded on my "user page", because I've seen everyone else do it themselves. There are some that even have a section, just like me with ALL of the photos that they've uploaded. And for example, the Firefox logo is a "Fair Use" item, but it is also on people's userpages as well. It seems that "conveniently" these rules only apply to me because Metros232 wants so badly to make problems when I've done nothing wrong. I've tagged the images accordingly to what the policy states and it says that it MUST have a tag on it, and explain why it is being used. I've done exactly just that. Thanks--Webmistress Diva00:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the content yourself, there are three licenses you have to use. They include the Creative Commons, GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or the public domain. It says on the upload page that if you made the content yourself, you cannot have it under fair use. Even if you wanted to, policy forbids that, so it would be better for you to not upload them in the first place if you didn't like the license choices you were offered (if you looked at them). If the photographer, which you hired, released the photos to Wikipedia, he needs to play email tag with permissions@wikimedia.org so he and Wikipedia can sort out the license that he wants to use. I dealt with the firefox logo issue before, but every time I tried to explain the situation to them, as I am to you now, I get shot down. I have not heard about the number of pages you are allowed to upload before it is not considered fair use, but with our current policies, fair use photos cannot be used on the userpage. If your wondering how you can show what pictues you uploaded, I would suggest to link your contributions to your userpage (which is interestly designed, I might add) so people can pick "Upload log" and it will show all of your uploads. That is legal to do. Honestly, Pebes, this is not the first user I had to explain this too, and Metros dealt with other users before about the fair use issue. The only reason why he is here is that if he needed someone to explain this better, I can. I deal with some of the copyright issues on Wikipedia, an as administrator, I enforce them. Please, what I suggest now is to not upload the photos again, and if you do, please use the licenses that I suggested or have the photographer contact the email address I provided. I hope this answers all of your questions. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Commons where the firefox logo is hosted and it was created with a free license, though I know it violates the Firefox logo guidelines. It was brought up for deletion before but was kept. I tried to use other foxes before, but was shot down by the userbox people (which I do not like much). You're not the first person, nor the last, to either misunderstand our policies on fair use or I had to enforce this policy by deletion. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, but I will have to continue this discussion at a later time... it's Christmas and I'd like to have a day without Wikipedia issues. Happy Holidays!--Webmistress Diva04:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As long as you take my advice, things will be fine. However, I do apologize for knocking out some of the extra code in your userpage. Happy holidays to you too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear that. I take it you had fun, after the good news. Thank you for taking care of part of my watchlist...Well, I'm off to rack some edits. Talk to you later...--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 01:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:IAF does not find wrong in use of "Indian Air Force" as his signature. Will some admin pl. cite proper policy on his talk page and do the needful. swadhyayee 11:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That's some pretty solid motivation. Go the history tab for the article and find the users who have invested the most time in the article. I will help you as much as possible after you've developed the article a bit more by adding ecology, distribution and similar information. KP Botany20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zach. I take it the flag of Bohol is okey in the article since it is still there? Just checking. Oh, you know you can be blunt with me. Please let me know if it is appropriate or not and it will be removed. Thank you for all the help. --Pinay (talk•email) 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who removed it pretty much wanted context, which you gave. Everything is fine now. (BTW, how does the Coat of Arms image look now)? User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okey. Maybe i was more upset with the grammar than anything else. hehehe. Anyway, please give me the link to CoA coz i am still "low IQ" about it. Oh, and i am still waiting for your feedback on the other article --Pinay (talk•email) 01:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted. What happened is that Bolanon got a license where it could be used on Wikipedia only. I should have explained to Bolanon that the license that the school gives us must allow the recording to do the following: Be used by others, be able to be used commercially and be abled to be modified. Have Bolanon secure that, then I will review the situation. If not, I am not able to restore the file. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zach, I didn't know what to choose for the licensing. Although the composer gave me full authority to release it to the public. Would this licensing type be sufficient: "Copyright holder has granted use for 'any' purpose including commercial. Must be justified in Permission!" ? I can upload it again to the commons site. Bolanon22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zach, I posted Bolanon's message here coz he just had it in his talkpage. I have forwarded the emails to you. Let me know what else we can do. --Pinay (talk•email) 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got some of your emails, but go ahead and forward the emails Bolanon got so I can look at them. I will contact them myself too, after I read the emails, since I think I need to be more clearer to the folks at IHMS. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent to one of the officials. You should get a copy of the email, which is an example of what permission letters could include. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment about Rizal later. The "image war" ar Garcia's article was started by me. I removed the previous photo because I looked at the page and it has no website source and just slapped with a fair use template. There is already a sourced image, of a small size, that fits well with the article. I suggest to you and the rest of WP:PINOY that they should begin to start sourcing their images, because if I found out that we can keep the photos, we need a source. And if the images have no sources, I have to bring out the axe and take the photos down. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have MSN Messenger on, so I will know exactly when I get the email, because I hear the messenger "ping" and shows me who sent me the email. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have some users from Singapore come into the Wikipedia IRC channel last night telling us the issues. I also had a hard time opening the Japanese and Korean Wikipedias, so I know about the situation. Wikipedia also knows, so lets just hope for the best (plus, if you want to ping me on the messengers, let me know too privately). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forwarded email permission. Also advised to send you email for permission. Is there need to re-upload? or just undo the delete? Nox/Bolanon will not be able to do it with the internet connection situation he has...--Pinay (talk•email) 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got the email. Saw the song in the article. It will be their pride and joy for it to be there. You would not know how grateful the Bohol clergy all over the world will be to you!!! Count on their blessings. --Pinay (talk•email) 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okey. BTW, I just learned that the IHMS song won during the 2000 IHMS Golden Jubilee Celebration among several entries from alumni all over the world...Is that notable to mention in the article? or just leave how it is as is. --Pinay (talk•email) 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image you uploaded, Image:Ratzinger coa.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
An image you uploaded, Image:Nishan-e-Haider.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Heya, Zscout. Just ran across you on some random page, and realized I haven't worked with you in quite some time. I've been pretty busy with real-life stuff, but on my spare time I now function as the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. We're making some really amazing progress, mostly due to a few amazingly dedicated editors (of which, I'm ashamed to say, I cannot count myself lately). How have things been on your end lately? – ClockworkSoul17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done :) Congrats, happy New Year, and would you mind scheduling some date for apperance on the Main page? That'd be awesome! Thanks a ton. Renata04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Latvijas_lielais_gerbonis.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Latvijas_lielais_gerbonis.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I made a test wiki entry which earned a Speedy Deletion categorization. I unknowingly resurrected the page and it's protected now. I agree it should be deleted but it remains in the wiki. How can I get rid of it altogether so it doesn't keep hanging around?
Happy New Year to you too. I am currently looking through the databank of the Kremlin to see what else is there. The other thing I found was GMA, along with many others, wearing traditional Vietnamese outfits. I am not sure how that will be put in, unless there is a section about diplomacy with others. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those were really nice pictures! Thank you for being on the lookout for us. I posted your msg in WT:PINOY. They will surely be put to good use. I also uploaded some good ones from US DoD in commonshere. --Pinay (talk•email) 01:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpgHappy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Sorry to trouble you. I found another variant on commons - "Grecja-roundel.svg". However I would like to ask you for Roundel of the Philippines Air Force.svg instead, if thats ok Zz9913:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image came from Reuters, who forbids commercial use of their images. Plus since the image came out less than 3 days ago, the agency, among others, are selling the photograph to other agencies. By us having it, we will fail in the 4th requirement for the image to be fair use. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have to say that first of all Reuters does not own copyright because it's a screenshot from the iraqi tv, so the iraqi station own the copyright, thought that's irrelevant at this point because the image is used under fair use, which "permit the use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia under a restricted set of criteria" when the content is not freely available. An example to this use of copyrighted material is Image:New York Times 9-11.jpg, which shows the newspaper headline (copyrighted content) of a important historic event under fair use. --WinHunter(talk)04:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I checked the image, it was being sold by Iraq TV to Reuters and the AP, and all three well selling the image. We still cannot use it yet. They are still selling the image. Give it about 6 months and I will have no objections. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another hint, someone uploaded a copy of the photo to the Wikimedia Commons. We cannot host fair use on the Commons at all, so even if down the road that we can use the Saddam hanging photo, we cannot have it on the Commons. What will most likely happen is after a few weeks, when the newsworthyness of the photo is gone, I will restore it. It has the source info, we have image undeletion, so give me about 5 weeks and I will restore it. Agreed? User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please immediately undelete my user-subpage User:Rwendland/Image:Hussein hangs.jpg that you "out of process" speedily deleted at 03:44 this morning [2]. I can see no proper basis for you deleting my user-subpage; it did not contain the image in question and was simply a record of the copyright justification prior to deletion so I could sleep on the matter before deciding if I wanted to take the issue further. The process for requesting a user page deletion is described at Wikipedia:User_page#Removal. Rwendland18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Do you also accept that as File:Hussein hangs.jpg had both a fair-use template and a Fair Use Rationale section, and that User:Rory096 had commenced the IfD process, you were wrong to speedily delete that image, and the proper thing to do would have been to let the IfD process run? (I do have sympathy with your argument that Reuters could be marketing the image so fair-use was invalid - but that argument should have been made in the IfD discussion.) I struggle to think of a reason for you to delete my user-subpage other than to remove evidence regarding your speedy delete of File:Hussein hangs.jpg - please explain. Rwendland09:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reason and authority for indefinitely blocking User:Nkras?
i see no discussion of this at ArbCom or ANI or anywhere. what gives you that authority? there is something very sinister going on here and ArcCom will be hearing about it soon. r b-j05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The administrators have the ability to block people for any length of time. Your friend, Nkras, was reposting content that was previously deleted under our policies. After being told not told, he did so anyways and promised to keep doing it. Because of his intent to disrupt Wikipedia, I had no choice to block him indefinitely. Plus, indefinite blocks do not have to first discussed on ANI or ArbCom. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he is not my friend even though he "thanked" me for comments i put on his talk page and i agree with him only marginally (almost not at all) on content regarding the article Marriage. i cannot find any discussion of the degree of abuse except on his talk page and that is thin. i dunno where you come from but this indefinite block is playing right into the hands of his content opponents and this is, in effect, a block because of content dispute.
i am no neophyte here, and unless you do the right thing here, Fred Bauder and other ArbCommissioners are going to hear about this. this is systemic bias at it's ugliest. r b-j05:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O, I thought of it being sent last Friday. No? maybe today, if Nox gets the chance to go on-line. First day back to work after the holidays...--Pinay (talk•email) 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although theatrical language like "something sinister going on" is of course out of place, I also support a review of the indefinite block on User:Nkras. After his initial clumsy behavior at Talk:Marriage, he de-escalated the situation himself and participated in the successful, collegial revision of the article's opening. I believe the attempted recreation of Traditional marriage was also in good faith, as this was discussed [3][4][5] during the afd.
The problem is that he was asked to not do it, yet he still did. The one that caused the indefinite block was the following message when he decided to recreate the article at Marriage (traditional): "18:42, 3 January 2007 . . Nkras (Talk | contribs | block) (Creation of Marriage (traditional). Deletion of this article without discussion, even by Admins, will be considered prima facie POV.)" If something was deleted because of AFD, then he should have gone to Wikipedia:Deletion review, not recreate the article across Wikipedia under several names. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and he'll learn. a 24 or 48 hour block might have sent a message, but the indefinite block says that "Nkras cannot get the message so why try?" the indefiniteness of the block is disproportionate and just wrong. i'm too tired to file a RFA now (01:13 hours EST), but i hope you will save us all a lot of time and headache and fix this before i get the energy to act on this. r b-j06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also someone on the opposite side of the fence from Nkras on most issues, but I still am shocked that he was blocked indefinitely, and think it was a gross overreaction. I would hope that this decision will be reversed, as Nkras, while being somewhat problematic at the beginning of his editing here, was a major force in resolving the conflict on the Marriage article. If he is unblocked, I will be the first to welcome him back. We had strong differences of opinion, but he certainly had my respect for his ability to compromise in order to achieve consensus. Jeffpw09:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I further think that protecting the Tradiditonal Marriage pages is heavy handed, to say the least. Several people, myself included, said that the topic itself was certainly worthy of an article, just not the article that was copied from Marriage itself. Now anyone who wants to write about the development of the term as used for political purposes is blocked from writing it. Jeffpw09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have made your position clear about your block of Nikras, so I shall, as well. I find it to be heavy handed, and entirely disproportionate to his transgression. I further find it troubling that you and other admins block users without explaining to them (many of whom are new or relatively new) what their options are in the situation. I once again request you unblock him. I also plan on submitting this to WP:AN and WP:ANI. Jeffpw21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't unblock. The only options that this user really has is to convince me that he needs an unblock. He can do that via email, which is listed at my userpage on MetaWiki (see the link on my userpage). Other than that, his options are slim. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So who the h... made you administrator, you seem a hypocrite, you just did something over there with some page photo.
All I did was I removed the photos from the articles for being copyright violations. I have no interest in finding out what time did he die. There is a post at WP:AN and on the talk page of Saddam's article. There is nothing much I can add and I won't be any use at those pages. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zach, please check if the stub can now be removed from the article. Also, the source for the IHMS song is already in the file. Please check so we can make the necessary correction. (BTW, let me know if you got the email re Lupang Hinirang). --Pinay (talk•email) 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Lupang Hinirang, I just listened to the wma file now, I did not know it was so "scratchy" or noisy. Why? old age? LoL! You've managed to lessen the noise? Is it better? --Pinay (talk•email) 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image[6] is deeply offensive to me and to many others.
The persistent upload and re-creation of this image, now under a new name, has been done to circumvent a prevented protection and block of same. It is now renamed "Welcome3.gif"
I have already told the author that I find it deeply offensive[7]. He has also been warned by a total of 3 admins so far. He has been told that if he keeps uploading it, he will be blocked without further warning. The warning was: "If you do one more such edit you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."[8] I ask that you please block him now and please delete this image for the last and final time. He has been given a lot of warnings and the image has been deleted many times before, but he keeps flouting the rules. - Mauco03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the image, but to me it seems like a fair use image according to WP:FAIR, under the overview of
"critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." - Yeah, it does that.
the execution is as notorious the "Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan", being the subject of worldwide discussion. Basically, it's not replacable with a free alternative and contains analysis and commentary.
It also fits the policy as:
No free equivilent exists
Won't replace the original market, since it's only a screenshot
It was low-resolution
It has been previously published
It is encyclopaedic
Meets the media-specific requirements
Was used in an article
Contributes significantly to the article (adds /A LOT/ to it)
Used in article namespace
Contained proper attribution
If you disagree (which I have a feeling you might), could you advise as to where to go to get a second opinion? I think it's an iconic, important, informative image that should to be placed on the page -Halo08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I deleted the image is that the image is fairly recent and is being sold by Iraq TV, Reuters and the AP. Under the fair use laws of the US, we cannot have the photo yet because the news agencies are still selling the photo. We are hurting the market value of the photo and we cannot host it because of it. As I told others, give us about 4 weeks and I can have the original Saddam hanging video restored. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)11:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I placed the template US interactive map on the Paring Bol-anon USA section. Will you please check if that is all right and/or move to a best position? Thank you...--Pinay (talk•email) 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. I will keep watch, but won't do any more blockings. I still believe that my original blocking should be a wake-up call for Nkras and that he knows that he has the community watching him. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images with permission
"these images are speedy deleted by order of Jimbo Wales since May of 2005"
Can you provide a pointer to this order and the rationale for it? If we have permission to use an image, we can use the image. Seems pretty clear to me. — Omegatron04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Order can be read at [9] (which is linked on my userpage too). I do not know why he personally did this decision, I cannot peer into his mind and find out why. What I, and Jimbo, meant by "by permission only" images is that Wikipedia, and only Wikipedia, can use the content. Wikipedia's content is copied by various websites, including images. That would put mirrors into a bind, plus, if we want to make a Wikipedia DVD, we can't use those images. I hope this helps. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why he personally did this decision, I cannot peer into his mind and find out why.
He doesn't seem to give any rationale, either, and the rest of that thread seems to only be about a specific website...
What I, and Jimbo, meant by "by permission only" images is that Wikipedia, and only Wikipedia, can use the content.
Yes.
Wikipedia's content is copied by various websites, including images. That would put mirrors into a bind
If they're clearly marked as copyrighted with Wikipedia-only permission, and another site copies them anyway, that's not really our problem. There are other things in the Image: namespace that can't be legally copied, either, like our logos. Of course we should make it as easy as possible for mirrors to differentiate between content which is under the GFDL (articles) and other licenses (all of the various image licenses), like we do with image tags, but I don't see why that should result in blanket removal of useful images for which we have the blessing of the copyright holder on our specific site.
plus, if we want to make a Wikipedia DVD, we can't use those images.
So don't include them. :-)
Gregory Maxwell points out a little rationale:
Wikipedia has grown past the point where we need to rely on grey legality images, and preserving them only discourages people who would submit free ones in their place.
And sure, if a Wikipedian can take a picture of a houseplant and copyleft it, we should use theirs instead of a grey legality image of a houseplant. But "with permission" images are not grey in legality. We have permission. We should use it. There are uncountable images of objects and events that will never be copyleft (copyright exists for a reason, after all...), but for which the copyright holder would gladly give us permission. Blanket prohibition of these unreproducable images would seem to conflict with our goal of creating an encyclopedia of the "highest possible quality". — Omegatron22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though we, Wikipedia, got the permission to use the images, the Board decided that these images are not free enough. A similar decision was made about images that couldn't be modified (not mentioned in this letter, but mentioned months later). While some of the photos we got permission for a good, the decision is out of my hands and the only one who can change the policy now is Jimbo Wales himself. I cannot speak for him, but IMHO, I do not think this is a decision that Jimbo will reverse. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Board decided that these images are not free enough
Thanks for your help offer. I wanted to create the three flags mentioned on the FOTW site as the "oldest" ones in the XVII century book, rather than linking to them on FOTW space. Beyond that, there are many flag variants that have been used in Russia in its history, most of them (the better documented ones, at least) after the tricolour, but some before. Perhaps I can research some of those and add them to the article. IgorSF05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will be perfectly fine. I went ahead and created the Флаг МЧС России (представительский) using Inkscape. You mention the flags that were part of Russia's history from FOTW, but just cannot use the artwork from there. Sure, we can document the variants, but I do not think we need graphics for them. However, I will want to discuss the variant of the Russian flag I see today: the tricolor charged with the Coat of Arms (including shield). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO in a subject concerning such a visual issue as a flag, the more images the better; if these images exist on the FOTW site, we'll only win by having them here as well. They are already documented in the article, by the way; but that's for future, when myself or someone else has the time to do a more throughout study of Russian flag variants and history. IgorSF09:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, claiming advantage is unlikely, since I wasn't going to create the image, but merely answering what I assumed to be your question ;) On a serious note, thanks for creating the image! IgorSF10:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, we can add information about the standard. What I was thinking was making a section in the article similiar to what I have at Flag of Belarus. The section will discuss Russian based flags that are inspired/derived from the tricolor. This will be included, including the other image I just shown you and countless others. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)11:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually precisely what I meant above. As I envision the future of a flag article, it features and explains the main flag - one used currently - but also gives detailed treatment to all flag variants, be it the past official flags, symbols based on the flag but used for different purposes, or any other derivations. I already added a brief mention about the standard using the image. IgorSF11:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zach, I now have 2 MIDI renditions of the Lupang Hinirang, the "labor of love" for the mother country by our very own FilipinowikipedianUser:Iandres. He wants us to upload to commons ourselves since, being new in Wiki, he is not very familiar with uploading and licenses, with his permission. I am forwarding his emails to you (though they are in Tagalog). Please advice. --Pinay (talk•email) 16:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is sad. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that other medals are up for sale - I was actually under the impression that this was the first one to be put up for auction (as it had made the news), and may have written the section of the Order of Canada section to imply that. --G2bambino21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have seen the medals up for auction since 2005 and sold by the user "defence medals canada." I won't add the link here but he has about 3 medals up on eBay related to the Order. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zach, sent u the wma file per instruction from copyright holder. Please do the honors of converting to ogg and including in the IHMS article. Thanks. --Pinay (talk•email) 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get this flag as right as much as you do, but I still think the colors are way to light. Ok, your right about the font, so I will change my design to where it uses the Seal color. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I think we, and that means also you, might need to post here the present needs of the article for its improvement. I will place the todo template. Thank you. --Pinay (talk•email) 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Per my comments on the LH talk page, I'm volunteering to do the sheet music for the Philippine National Anthem. It's actually sitting in my PC and, with a few tweaks here and there, would be ready for uploading. Will be letting you guys know when it's ready :) --- Tito Pao21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zach, please update me re the upload of the song "On Wings of the Spirit" with AZ's permission. Please do the honors of converting to ogg and placing in the article, as well as music notation. Message me updates. Thank you. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VC (Canada)
I see you reverted that recent addition. You were probably right, although it seemed an interesting suggestion, albeit in a rather unencyclopedic tone. My Latin is unfortunately poor, so I can't comment on its truth or not. I suppose we really need a reference to admit something like this.
That is why I took it out. It sounded like original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I understood some people had issues with the Latin on the Order of Canada, so you are not the only one who thinks Canada butchers the Latin language. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use violations. The image of the suspect was very large and it either needed to be removed or reduced. I removed it. As for the CNN photo, I am not sure if we can use it yet, since it felt like CNN is still using the image for their purposes. We should wait on using the CNN photo and maybe shrink the photo of the suspect by about 2/3rds. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Portal Belarus
Hello Zscout370!
Thanks for your answer on my discussion. Unfortunally i am not a sysop on the german wikipedia, but thats how life is ;-). I am not sure at the moment of how to Belurasian content on the DE:WP. Mabey you could tell my some Articles that do not excist on the DE:Wikipedia. All in all i was possitive surprised by your answer on my discussion. Manecke13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could reanswer on the German page in a few, but I have classes in a little bit. All I can pretty much tell you is that I made 5 Belarusian articles reach the "featured" status, so your welcome to improve the German articles with what I did. There is also images of Belarus I either found, created or others created, that can be used by searching the Commons. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, but he wor you did was quietly good, if i´m alowed to see this. Is your only favourite theme in the wp belarus, or are you also interessted in other themes? Manecke20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to work on Russian and Belarusian articles, I try to focus on national symbols the most. The work can be seen, I just need to give the list of FA's I did related to Belarus. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The indefinite block I issued to GoodCop was for legal threats he made against users. He also tried to show authority as a cop and using "investigations" and demanding this and that to be done. I do not have checkuser and I think the evidence for checkuser is way too old. I will not reconsider my block for GoodCop. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added in a line to the top section cautioning about the scammers trying to charge for the program, and a couple of other things (RTC slowing); is this OK? If you google WinMX, the first several sites to come up are people trying to sell you what should be avilable for free, and I wanted to point this out. Shalom S.05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, I just intended to upload the real logo in the same name later. I will not do it again though. Thanks for letting me know. --MJHankel01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still the problem of naming the copyright holder... can fair use be claimed where the copyright holder is unknown? For instance, there's a drawing of the Ariel, the LIRR's first locomotive, in the book, credited only as "Collection of Harold Fagerberg". (This seems to be very common in railfan books; people build up collections of images, often donated from others, and they're the ones credited.) Common sense would say that it was probably drawn a long time ago, but (1) when was it published and (2) it could have been a recent redrawing. There are some that are actually credited to the photographer, G. B. Brainard, whose collection is preserved at the Brooklyn Public Library, but none of those are particularly useful images, except for one that could be useful on New York and Brooklyn Bridge Railway but not in the LIRR article. --NE218:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I definitely plan to source the freight service section. As for the red links, I believe them all to be valid article topics; why should their status affect the quality of this article? --NE218:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the US copyright law has a provision for authors that are not publicly known, that might help us in this case. But, since we know who at least has the photo, we could ask Mr. Fagerberg if he knows. But that is only assuming if there was a way we could contact him or if he is still living. If not, I will go personally digging myself. The reason why I mentioned the red-links is that many red links seem to be distracting for users and I was opposed on a few FAC's that I did for the numerous red links that occured. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could give me a list of the Belarus-related featured articles, featured pictures (I need at least one good picture), DYKs (a couple of those would do nicely) and perhaps recommend a famous, well-known and loved Belarusian (I doubt Lukashenko would do). Is there a notice-board where I can request information on this kind of thing (the Russian one maybe)?--Rudjek21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of FA's is at the Portal, but I can reproduce them here: Hero of Belarus – Flag of Belarus – Belarusian Republican Youth Union – National emblem of Belarus – My Belarusy. Not sure about the photos, and all I know is that Hero of Belarus was a DYK. I am not sure if there is a noticeboard that I can think of, but I can help you personally with anything that you need with this portal. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? All that's needed now is a selected picture, a selected biography and one or more used DYKs, can you think of anything? Do you think I should start updating the "live" Portal:Belarus yet?--Rudjek18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:ZSMP logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Canadian Heraldic Authority has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
--Evabd21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zscout370. You converted the above template to a CSD template, so all the images linked to it ([11]) would be marked for speedy deletion. As this dumped 500 images into the speedy deletion backlog, it's been converted back to the template (not by me). As nowhere near all of them ought to be speedily deleted, it might be better to go through thwe images and tag only those that ought to be deleted. Proto::►13:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my intent, to have the photos speedy deleted since they are non-commercial. Most do not have fair use rationals anyways, which is what that template states it needed in order to be saved from deletion. Not quite sure what else you want me to do, since we cannot have these photos and I am sure as hell that these photos will not be deleted if people don't know they are slated for it. I will figure something out when I get home. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please restore them? I was looking around and most were rather flimsy; "article created with history of copyright infrigement," "had a copyvio," etc. I mean, come on, I'd rather revert it to the last clean version. And if I turn into a copyright violator, would that mean the hasty, speedy deletion of Philippines since I heavily edited it? That looks like a bad reason on deleting articles, don't you think? --HowardtheDuck17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles can be recreated (I said that twice at WP:PINOY); and this is standard procedure. We check the articles that person edited and if it turns out to be nothing but copyright violations, they can be deleted with no bias on recreation. But I will restore the diffs later that are not offending. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is they can be undeleted too, and these have revision histories which are copyvio-free; I had to clean out the newly recreated Super Twins article since it had a copyvio; if all articles were created with copyvios then they'll be deleted, again. --HowardtheDuck17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can writing something like even if its really bare (like one sentence)? Is it enough? I don't watch these programs and I don't know anything about them. --HowardtheDuck02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew that about the Purple Heart award. I just assumed it was something else since John Kerry won three of them and even in Canada we heard about it immensely. I looked over the AfD again and it seems like people are relatively undecided about the article even though most of the votes do look like Deletes. I may as well keep my Keep vote as I am sympathetic to the idea of remembering those lost to us and I think a Wikipedia article that is historic to the event is not a bad way to do it. It's something I could see someone googling and clicking on the Wikipedia link to find out more. Mkdwtalk11:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thank you for messaging me, and thank you again for being sensitive to the voting process. I always find it difficult to message people regarding their vote. =)
Yes, John Kerry mentioned the Purple Hearts, almost saying it is an act of bravery. But really, a Purple Heart means you got injured or killed in combat by enemy fire. I know how you feel about honoring the US troops, a neighbor of mine was killed in Iraq in 2004 and my dad just came back from there. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Peer Guardian
Interesting, but at this point all of that is "he said/she said" speculation. That stuff needs to be verified by a professional. -Strider0115:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you lock and delete this article? If it is viral advertising and no such drug exists, it should clearly be indicated on the wikipedia page, and then locked, if vandalism is a problem. JudgeX18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, from the looks of what I found its some sort of viral advertising/nonsense, but rather than just locking the page it would have been much more useful to display that than to display nothing.
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. — SomeHuman7 Feb2007 20:44 (UTC)
In reply to your message posted on the voting page:
"the focus of the maps should be on the country, not some super-union that some countries cannot be a part of, like Belarus."
Your statement is misunderstanding the current European (at large) politic.
First, the EU is not a super-union that some countries cannot be part of. It has emerged as an economical union and lately changed to a more political association. In some aspects it resembles federal states, because many laws are decided by the EU commission or parliament, and the member states are transposing them to their local laws. To build such an entity, it is hard to accept all countries at once. It has been tried with what is known as the Eastern Europe enlargement. But, in some way it failed. Too many different cultures at once and even the core state citizen feel lost, thus rejecting the European Constitution. People also feel discourage because for example in the Netherlands, they are paying a lot of their taxes to improve the economy of the new member countries or other member countries not performing well, while at the same time they have their social benefits decreasing... They feel it like unfair. So I'm pretty sure (own opinion) that it will take time before new EU member comes in. You cannot build a cathedral on sand directly, it requires some special effort and technics.
Second, as for the Belarus example. This is one example that is easy to comment. The president Loukashenko is more of a dictator than a democratically elected president. He is also more or less the puppet of the Russian. These are two reasons why Belarus cannot join the EU now. They need to have a democratic government and institutions, and get their independence (in terms of political decision) from Moscow. Some decision in Europe requires that 100% of the states agree on them. Russia could then block some process within Europe if they would not be happy with some of their decision. I guess you don't want to have North Corea be part of the United States, do you? I mean that they choose to join the Union but still keep their dictator...
No problem, don't worry about it. It actually took me a while to work out what your message was about, as I wasn't editing at the time so I didn't notice at all. What happened was I saw that AN had been vandalised, but by the time I clicked on history then rollback Ryulong had obviously fixed it, so my edit rolled him back instead. Raven4x4x10:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lubeh group photo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lubeh group photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking out some of my friends here and decided to drop you a line since I haven't written to you in some time. I noticed that I am in your Wikifriends list and I wanted you to know that I feel honored to be among your friend here. I also consider you a good friend and please give your dad a "Semper Fi" on my behave. Tony the Marine19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will. Pretty much, while I do admit that our first encounter was not on the best of terms, but as a Marine, I knew you would see past it and focus on the future. That is why I put you in my friends list; I value Marines and their service, just like what my father is doing (he is a E-9, Master Gunnery Sergeant). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian gov. probably won't be much help; they couldn't even tell me who designed the coat of arms when I asked. There is a good fair use argument for reproducing the lyrics, but I think the best way to avoid violating copyright on the current version is to just highlight the parts of the original lyrics that make up the current anthem, the differences are already explained in test, which you suggest on the talk page. Maybe we could use a coloured box around each of the two verses like people seem to be using for long quotes? --Peta04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me, I would just use bolding, as I done with the Mexican anthem, but whatever works best for highlighting the areas, that is fine by me. If the consulate won't help, I will write a physical letter to that office I mentioned on the talk page, if yall do not mind waiting. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to ask for official permission for commercial use? I really doubt that they grant it given that anyone can subsequently edit the text. --Peta04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article contents, of course, are editable. But I am sure the lyrics will be left intact. Just for the formatting is what needs debating, and I can ask to see if we can do that. I will also ask about unofficial translations, since I am hoping to get this issue solved for the other Wikipedia, since more of them are ditching fair use. I plan including a copy of the article to show what we are doing too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking out some of my friends here and decided to drop you a line since I haven't written to you in some time. I noticed that I am in your Wikifriends list and I wanted you to know that I feel honored to be among your friend here. I also consider you a good friend and please give your dad a "Semper Fi" on my behave. Tony the Marine19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will. Pretty much, while I do admit that our first encounter was not on the best of terms, but as a Marine, I knew you would see past it and focus on the future. That is why I put you in my friends list; I value Marines and their service, just like what my father is doing (he is a E-9, Master Gunnery Sergeant). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian gov. probably won't be much help; they couldn't even tell me who designed the coat of arms when I asked. There is a good fair use argument for reproducing the lyrics, but I think the best way to avoid violating copyright on the current version is to just highlight the parts of the original lyrics that make up the current anthem, the differences are already explained in test, which you suggest on the talk page. Maybe we could use a coloured box around each of the two verses like people seem to be using for long quotes? --Peta04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me, I would just use bolding, as I done with the Mexican anthem, but whatever works best for highlighting the areas, that is fine by me. If the consulate won't help, I will write a physical letter to that office I mentioned on the talk page, if yall do not mind waiting. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to ask for official permission for commercial use? I really doubt that they grant it given that anyone can subsequently edit the text. --Peta04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article contents, of course, are editable. But I am sure the lyrics will be left intact. Just for the formatting is what needs debating, and I can ask to see if we can do that. I will also ask about unofficial translations, since I am hoping to get this issue solved for the other Wikipedia, since more of them are ditching fair use. I plan including a copy of the article to show what we are doing too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Operation Joint Guardian was the major operation bringing stability to Kosovo, but it took yeard for them just to get a stub article. So that is why I left that statement, since people love to be creating articles on the next webgem website or term, yet we leave out current events. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may do this, but for now I will wait to see how the article improves. Basically, every fact should have a reference... and when I get to it, in article with such poor inline ref coverage, some people tend to accuse me of fact spamming and uglyfing the article - alas, look at my most recent FA to see what standard I now both expect and enforce in articles I edit.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik(talk)
Barnstar]]
Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik(talk)
Once again, someone disagrees with my interpretation of our very loose guidelines. Now I don't mind when two users like WJBscribe and Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na, but they've taken the disagreement and posted negative comments over at that RFC.
I just removed a cleanup tag you put in an article back in 2005: [12]. I am in general not much in favour of cleanup tags not explaining what needs cleanup. They are not very informative, and are often left in the article after the issues are taken care or. In this case, since you were apparently thinking of fixing the article back then... I just though I'd srop you a note to give you the chance to look at it again. // habj16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the copyright issue with the seals, but I suggest to remove it from userboxes and all of that stuff. I think it might needs to go from the Bohol Portal tag. As for the png to svg tag, it doesn't determine the copyright status of an image. It is just saying that it needs to be in another format. (I am at college now, but if Jaja is on, I will try and speak to her soon, hopefully.) User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
promophoto business
Thanks for your quick response. That's precisely the understanding I got from reading 5-10 talk pages that dealt with this. Of course Wikimedia controls all language editions equally and so I figured - this is probably coming our way eventually. But this magical email directive from above isn't referenced anywhere. Plus, it would be good to know how two community members of the Wikimedia Board voted on this issue and whether Jimbo voted opposite to both, just one or they were all together. Needless to say this can alienate people - a political decision (not a legal question) against a significant part of the community. Sorry, this doesn't look good, regardless what Jimbo thinks. --Dzordzm08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between srwiki and enwiki as far as copyright issues go. Both are projects of Wikimedia Foundation, HQ'ed in Florida, stored and distributed from U.S. servers, etc. There are issues I wish were cleared up somewhere, for example what makes Airbus logo fair use at enwiki - but these apply equally to all language editions. Honestly whether a user from Germany edits in dewiki or enwiki should make no difference as far as applicable law and the understanding adopted in srwiki is that we are generally subject to U.S. law (of course individual images are subject to laws of the country where they were created, but that's regardless).
Of course you're free to browse srwiki and I'd be glad to hear any suggestions. I introduced image copyright tags in May 2005 and starting July 2006 we have been deleting images without proper licences within seven days plus mass-deleting previously uploaded unlicensed and wrongly licensed material. While not all our material is compliant due to the amount of work and some moot legal issues (which are exacerbated by the poor general legal conditions in Serbia, e.g. images being routinely used in mainstream media or archives without any attribution and very poor general awareness on copyright issues) I think we have been making remarkable progress in the last year or so. I'm curoius about your perceptions :) --Dzordzm09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.When browsing srwiki you may find it helpful to click on "latinica" tab in the upper-right corner - it's more readable for non-speakers than our Cyrillic scrypt. --Dzordzm09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
North America (Americas)
You may not know this, I'll try to explain it as simple as I can. User Corticopia (remember Cogito Ergo Sumo, E Pluribus Anthony and Ex Post Factoid from the article North America? [13]) has been pushing the POV that Mexico is part of Central America. We had an edit warring in the article Mexico and a debate Talk:Mexico, in which we provided enough evidence that a portion of southeastern Mexico is physiographically in Central America, but that geopolitically Mexico is in the North American region. He agreed and he proceeded to edit the article in that way.
He nominated the article North America (Americas) for deletion, saying that it was created following a POV pushing. I created the article in order to avoid confusion and in order to have the different models used in the Americas (North, Central, South or the model Corticopia likes, Northern, Middle and South). Also because the Template:Regions of the world lacked an article about the NA region, it used to have a link to North America (continent).
Other than being a veiled ad hominem argument, I think YOU have gone too far AC. As I've stated there, there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America (numerous definitions provided) arewell sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. The sources in North America (Americas) do not support the content in that article, and a read of those sources will reveal that. Regardless, if necessary, applicable content can be added to the North America article instead of forking and conflating. Corticopia14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, read what I wrote in the AFD page. Pretty much, while I do not think your intent for article creation was bad, I think you just went about it the wrong way. What I would suggest is merge whatever is useful in the article you made into North America and allow for a redirect to be made. But I would like to suggest this to you and Corticopia, just chill out and relax. I know yall had disputes before, even lashing out at each other at AFD's. I don't know what caused the disputes, but I want it to stop now. I worked with you before Alex on the article related to the Mexican flag, though to be honest, I have not worked with Corticopia at all. But I honestly believe the both of you have done good for Wikipedia; I hate to see the two of you go at it like this. We need good people on here, I want the two of you to stay on here, but try to work out the differences the both of you have. If you need my help to do so, then I can do it. Please, please, please just calm down and relax. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can help out (though sadly, I am about to head to class). Have Corticopia contact me by email too so we can sort the problem out. (I mainly like to use email for this for privacy reasons). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[…] materials […] may be reproduced […] The only condition [for reproduction] is that any reproduction […] contain a reference to the original source. […]
Although it may have been the intent here to grant further rights (we can’t tell and I’m not optimistic about getting a reply to my e-mail to them), such rights are not discussed in the licence. Unless there is a separate agreement between the copyright holder and us, those rights therefore remain exclusively with the copyright holder.
While it is unlikely that the agency behind the website would object to our use of the material, we should not claim towards downstream users that the material is free (as in ‘freedom’), which means—as far as I understand the concept of Commons—that it should not be on Commons and that we should only use it here under the usual restrictions for non-free (including ‘free’ as in ‘free beer’) material, with all the implications for necessity, replaceability, quality and quantity.
I am not sure if it is for text only, since it says materials from the Presidental Press Service are under this same license. The Press Service does photographs (and we usually see the photos with a byline saying who are they from). I personally think here are the two problems: one, many pictures will be affected by the license change and two, many of the Russian users probably still feel burned from the PD-USSR debates. While I think we should have the license clarified, I am not sure how we can do it (unless we can have Wikipedia Russia sort the mess out, since we could send users to Moscow). As for the pictures on en.wikipedia, don't worry about them, since if the licenses change, I can just speedy the images I uploaded on that license. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the all text, I doubt that is true, since "all materials" usually means text, photos, video, audio. If they would have disallowed photos, they would be saying "all text" instead. Regardless, I am going to play email tag with the Kremlin. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that the situation is frustrating for people who edit Russia/USSR-related articles, but vis-à-vis copyright law and the third pillar, this doesn’t carry much weight. We already make exceptions for historical images; there is no reason to make exceptions for the rest, especially not if it is mostly a matter of convenience. There are ca. 200 files on Commons tagged with this tag (and probably several thousand more files tagged with other tags with similar terms), but many of them are replaceable and some of the others may be fair use. If we wait with clarifying the status of tags like this one, we’ll simply end up with even more images—which will still need clarification. I’m not really sure what you suggest—they don’t seem to like e-mail[14] and I doubt they’d appreciate a mob of Wikipedians showing up to ask about ‘криэтив камонс’. (The time when a village could send somebody to petition comrade Lenin for electrification of their village (and the petitioner) is long past.) Basically, for them, the easiest and safest thing is not to say anything on the topic. —xyzzyn16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the pilars, and I like to defend those pillars along with the next guy. However, as I was thinking it over, my problem is this: because of the lack of disclosure of the modifcation terms, that is why they are going through the delete debate. Usually, if a website wants you to not to do something, they will specifically state it. In our case, the Russians didn't state about modification, so we will have to wait and see. (As for some of the photos, they could be fair use, but many, they would need to be deleted or replace eventually). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that—unless I misunderstand it—copyright law means they do not have to say anything on the issue and we still couldn’t use their material. Notes like ‘all rights reserved’, ‘educational use only’ or ‘derivative works permitted only on the third Tuesday in Nullary facing northwest’ are a matter of courtesy (and, in litigation, a matter of being able to say ‘told you so’). Not to answer requests for clarification of such notes is rude, but does not grant the requesting parties any rights (except the right to complain in public about the fact). So, while news agency photos are definitely not usable, I think we can’t use Press Service material either, unless, of course, they modify the terms to make it free. Given the current lag in the Commons deletion process (I still have an open deletion request from January), we’re going to wait and see no matter what happens. However, if they don’t say anything (useful), then, eventually, we’re going to have to make an assumption, and that assumption should consider law and policy before usefulness. —xyzzyn00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Kremlin said nothing at all and just with a standard "all rights reserved" copyright notice, then we would have gotten rid of the pictures from the Commons long ago. But with the things they said at the "media use" page, that caused someone in the past to go ahead and create the license. Keep in mind we probably had it before we got rid of non-commercial/non-modification photos. Now we are starting that, I guess it is one of the victims. I just think that with our different views, and not to mention, a different country we are dealing with, this will not be an easy issue to solve. If the template is deleted, that is fine, and I will not use the Kremlin again for photo sources. I am just trying to stay calm and rational, though some people are voting keep for the template based on my thinking (which could be a bad thing). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If you wish to delete the EN version and rid of the photos there, you have my blessing to do it (not like you need my permission anyways, but it makes thing easier since there is only 5 pics to deal with, 4 from me). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to figure out the matter on Commons first, to have some sort of precedent, and also to see how far policy goes there. The eventual goal is to sort commons:Commons:Copyright tags#Unknown nature into tags that are free and tags that need to be deleted (and likewise with the corresponding images, of course). —xyzzyn02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PhilippinesGov
Hi, why did you reverted this template back to the redirect to the no license tag. It's obviously an unfree license and a whole bunch have to be deleted, but probably not all of them and right now they all have a speedy delete tag on them. See also Category:Unfree SXC licensed images, also unfree but not immediately deleted. A few weeks to notify uploaders wouldn't be so bad. Garion96(talk)18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of never mind, I missed this edit in the history. A notice on the talk page would have been handy. :) I wonder why the board is so hard on those images and left so many other non-commercial or other unfree images open. I do agree btw, but it still seems too fast. Garion96(talk)18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was mandated by the Board and there are threads on WP:PINOY about it. As for it being fast, I do not think so. There was plenty of time for discussion and after 3 months, I had to take action. We are still in the process of getting rid of these images, as you can see in the above discussion of the Kremlin.ru template. It sucks, but it has to be done. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PINOY is not on my watchlist. :) It's just weird that the other unfree categories has been here for years, and this one has to go immediately. But I do agree, the more unfree images gone (except perhaps a small group which could fall under fair use) the better. Garion96(talk)14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; it took months to debate of wether the PD images from the former USSR takes time. However, debates have been going quicker over time since we now have the ability to remove images with bots and also to restore images deleted on accident. I just wanted to be sure that all of the images were removed and orphaned before they were deleted. With the SXC images, people are still debating about those and some were uploaded before the deadline of non-commercial images. Soon enough, they will be rid of too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw it, the article read like a self promotion newsletter about the organization and only uses their own website for references. So, going by what I have done in the past, I deleted it. However, what I am going to do is make the above article redirect over to Transcendental Meditation. Several of the other articles about Transcendental Meditation have been either met with merging or deleting, because they either are not notable to cover in an article on it's own or best covered in another section. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a copyrighted logo of Disney, thus they hold the copyright and we cannot redo the logo and put it in the public domain. And since it is only used for userboxes, it cannot be on Wikipedia at all. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were not disrupting Wikipedia, under the scripts and bots policy, a script being ran by a user that is causing problems on Wikipedia, we can block it until the script is stopped running. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV, from what I see now, it has a lot of endorse votes. The person who deleted the article is a person I trust very well. However, DRV usually is for improper deletions (like if I delete the article on AMLO and protected it). However, I think it was a proper deletion, since a lot of the voting for keep was either keep (then signatures) or trying to discredit you. So just relax, though I think a second AFD might be coming. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response; you might want to weigh in there, but I leave that to you. I believe the nominator of the review (and some others) do believe the AfD to be improper or that the 'retention' viewpoint has been unnecessarily deprecated. I'm unsure what you mean by (so to speak) 'the second coming' and I truly hope this is the last of it, but life is full of surprises: as Reagan said, "Trust, but Verify." In any event, thanks again for your input. Corticopia09:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by a second coming of the AFD is that one of the decisions that an admin can make is called a "relist at AFD." It means the article gets sent back to AFD for yet another debate. I think it is heading towards that way, though I am seeing more endorses than restores (maybe enough to relist, since I know some people on Wikipedia are process wonks, since "consensus" wasn't made). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask my boss, the FOTW director, Rob Reaside, if you contact him using the FOTW website. While I have not seen a copyright claim to the image or to the flag itself, it doesn't hurt to ask him. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mdew.png
You just deleted Image:Mdew.png—a picture of mine—with the reasoning “and Warhol's copyright still exists on the soup cans painting, so this is a copyvio”. I do not remember seeing a notice that you were considering doing this, and your reasoning in this case is faulty. The picture I uploaded was not by Warhol, it was by me, so the only copyright involved (PepsiCo does have a trademark on the the name Mountain Dew, but that is different) was my copyright. Since I released the image to the public domain, it can not be a copyright violation. Please restore the image and its talk page which explained this in greater detail. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The logo is still under copyright of Pepsi Co. We cannot draw a logo ourselves and put it into the public domain. Just like with the above logo issue with Disney, we cannot draw someone elses copyright and make it our own. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But their logo is not copyrighted, it is trademarked. Bass beer’s trademarked logo is a red triangle, the trademark only stops you from using a red triangle commercially in the beer (possibly beverage) market. Long before the soda existed, Mountain Dew meant whisky, and it was the name of the editorial column in the Catskill Mountain News. PepsiCo’s trademark only makes it illegal to use it to pretend to be them in the commercial marketplace. While many trademark holders would like us to believe that trademark is the same as (or even stronger than) copyright it is just different.
When Warhol painted the Campbell’s soup can he did not violate any copyrights because they did not apply, and he did not violate trademark, because he was not pretending to be the soup company. My picture in no way violated copyright, and it would only violate trademark if used deceptively. —MJBurrage • TALK • 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having not gotten a response, I will be reposting a Mountain Dew image soon. Furthermore, to add to the above information, under US law typefaces cannot be copyrighted, and as PepsiCo is an American company, that is the law that would apply here. —MJBurrage • TALK • 05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are still using the logo in other places. Plus, with Mountain Dew being created not long ago (1940's) their original copyright on the logo won't expire for several more years. So, please, do not upload it again. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming they have a copyright to their logo, logos are trademarked NOT copyrighted. Now if they used a copyrighted picture as part of a trademarked logo than you would be correct, but typefaces are not copyrightable, and the image I posted was only the words Mountain Dew in a similar typeface, I deliberately did not include the graphic swirls that are around the current logo (In part to make the image timeless, and in part in case somebody mistakenly believed they were copyrighted. Since the name Mountain Dew, is not copyrightable, and the typeface is not copyrightable, my image is not copyright infringement. Commercial misuse would be trademark infringement, but that is not an issue here. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a logo being used by a company; and on Wikipedia, we treat logos are fair use images. And fair use images cannot be used in the userspace. What I can suggest is that if this logo is mostly for the userspace, just go with the standard MD text, with each letter the green and red color, and use that. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect in your assertion that a trademark cannot also be copyrighted. Pepsico's rendition of the Mountain Dew logo is well within the scope of copyright under US law, and you may not make copies of it without either license from Pepsico or a legitimate claim that such copies fall within fair use, and if you do make such copies you may not upload them to Wikipedia except as permitted by Wikipedia's "fair use" policies. Generally speaking, logos may be and generally are copyrighted. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Honored Teacher of the Republic of Belarus" sounds exactly like what I'm looking for! Teachers the world over deserve recognition, and I'll pay the bounty for an article in the English WP on any national teacher recognition program. As long as the word "teacher" actually applies to an educator (and it isn't some loaded political term used for ideological reasons, eg. "Kim Il Sung is the Great Teacher of the People"), I'll be very happy to award the bounty.
As far as the terms of the bounty, I give $50 if the article makes it to FA status; or $25, if the article simply exists in non-stub form. Thanks! Xoloz14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Dont know if you got my message. I finished the new Chechen logo. Search for Image:Wiki.png on ce.wikipedia.org. Problem is, I dont now how to update it. How do you do it? I have sysop status so either you or I can do it. Please tell me :) Respond on my Talk page on Chechen wiki. Thanks :) --Ice20116:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already two steps ahead of you: I am in the process of getting vocal recordings we can use. You can talk to the folks at WP:PINOY to see some of the details. I still need to convert the files to OGG, but I am waiting for the vinyl recordings to be copied. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any trouble I might've caused you. While you're at it you might want to find a vocal recording for the Uzbekistan national anthem to replace the youtube link you deleted. And if you happen to find other Anthem pages with youtube links, and those links are the only vocal links on those pages, would you consider replacing them with usable vocal recordings instead of just deleting them and leaving nothing? Thanks. Inkan196920:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that request is this: we cannot just randomly link to mp3 files too. Plus, many of the vocal recordings have some copyright issues, so it would not bear fruit to upload them. I have a recording of the Uzbek anthem, and I think their symbols are PD, so I can see what I can do with that. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix the SVG files that you have done, but they crashed my computer a few times. Even the ones that I did myself causes my computer to crash (to the point where I had to do data recovery). We can use the PNG's for now, there is no hurry to get to SVG, since I need to find someone who has a higher memory to do these images. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice you just protected your monobook.js subpage. In case you weren't already aware, user JS and CSS pages are by default only editable by the user to whom they belong and administrators, regardless of whether the user is an administrator themselves. Full protection of such a page is therefore not strictly necessary, as it has no effect (beyond preventing the user themselves from editing it if they are not an administrator, which does not apply in this case). Just to let you know – Qxz08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to think about this. I've just been reading the previous FAC (after making my own notes; and I fear you will find me a second Tony). Some of his criticisms have still not been addressed: for example, you can't write about countries without knowing whether they are singular or plural (I say singular). The other thing is that I have a list of actionable points, but they are only the tip of the iceberg, and so my criticisms can't really be ticked off, as such, because, like dragon's teeth, more will spring out of the ground. I would much rather assist with the article, at a friendlier moment, when FA status isn't at stake.
Here's a taste of the notes I have made, for example:
This foxed me: In the early parts of the This personal union eventually resulted in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a federation created in 1569. The Muscovites, lead by Tsar Ivan the III, began military conquests in 1486 to try and gain the Kievan Rus' lands, specifically Belarus and Ukraine. To me, that needs more than copyediting; it needs rethinking. (Tricky stuff, I know; but for a start, we're talking former Kievan Rus' And there were a series of unions—and the significance of the Union of Kreva is disputed.)
In the following, I'm thinking, whoa, slow down...
In September 1939, as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and annexed its eastern lands, including majority of Polish-held Byelorussian land.[15] In 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Byelorussia was occupied....
The article there skates over the first unification of eastern and western Belarus into one republic! Highly significant, surely, since the independent country grew out of that republic.
And lots of bad, unhelpful prose, such as:
Belarus has been increasing their cooperation with African, Middle Eastern and Asia.
Some of the organizations Belarus has membership include the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
If I can be honest, your welcome to help start on this now, since I pretty much know FA has been lost. Since Belarus, sadly, is yet another one man job done by me, there is a lot of things I really stink at. Grammar is a problem I have the most. I am in still in the process of expanding the history section, so once it has been expanded enough, then I will try and tinker around with the wording of the section. Thanks again. (As for you being another Tony, he did a lot to keep me in check on featured articles, but you are being pretty calm and civil, which is all I ask for in editors.) User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already two steps ahead of you: I am in the process of getting vocal recordings we can use. You can talk to the folks at WP:PINOY to see some of the details. I still need to convert the files to OGG, but I am waiting for the vinyl recordings to be copied. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any trouble I might've caused you. While you're at it you might want to find a vocal recording for the Uzbekistan national anthem to replace the youtube link you deleted. And if you happen to find other Anthem pages with youtube links, and those links are the only vocal links on those pages, would you consider replacing them with usable vocal recordings instead of just deleting them and leaving nothing? Thanks. Inkan196920:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that request is this: we cannot just randomly link to mp3 files too. Plus, many of the vocal recordings have some copyright issues, so it would not bear fruit to upload them. I have a recording of the Uzbek anthem, and I think their symbols are PD, so I can see what I can do with that. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix the SVG files that you have done, but they crashed my computer a few times. Even the ones that I did myself causes my computer to crash (to the point where I had to do data recovery). We can use the PNG's for now, there is no hurry to get to SVG, since I need to find someone who has a higher memory to do these images. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice you just protected your monobook.js subpage. In case you weren't already aware, user JS and CSS pages are by default only editable by the user to whom they belong and administrators, regardless of whether the user is an administrator themselves. Full protection of such a page is therefore not strictly necessary, as it has no effect (beyond preventing the user themselves from editing it if they are not an administrator, which does not apply in this case). Just to let you know – Qxz08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to think about this. I've just been reading the previous FAC (after making my own notes; and I fear you will find me a second Tony). Some of his criticisms have still not been addressed: for example, you can't write about countries without knowing whether they are singular or plural (I say singular). The other thing is that I have a list of actionable points, but they are only the tip of the iceberg, and so my criticisms can't really be ticked off, as such, because, like dragon's teeth, more will spring out of the ground. I would much rather assist with the article, at a friendlier moment, when FA status isn't at stake.
Here's a taste of the notes I have made, for example:
This foxed me: In the early parts of the This personal union eventually resulted in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a federation created in 1569. The Muscovites, lead by Tsar Ivan the III, began military conquests in 1486 to try and gain the Kievan Rus' lands, specifically Belarus and Ukraine. To me, that needs more than copyediting; it needs rethinking. (Tricky stuff, I know; but for a start, we're talking former Kievan Rus' And there were a series of unions—and the significance of the Union of Kreva is disputed.)
In the following, I'm thinking, whoa, slow down...
In September 1939, as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and annexed its eastern lands, including majority of Polish-held Byelorussian land.[15] In 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Byelorussia was occupied....
The article there skates over the first unification of eastern and western Belarus into one republic! Highly significant, surely, since the independent country grew out of that republic.
And lots of bad, unhelpful prose, such as:
Belarus has been increasing their cooperation with African, Middle Eastern and Asia.
Some of the organizations Belarus has membership include the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
If I can be honest, your welcome to help start on this now, since I pretty much know FA has been lost. Since Belarus, sadly, is yet another one man job done by me, there is a lot of things I really stink at. Grammar is a problem I have the most. I am in still in the process of expanding the history section, so once it has been expanded enough, then I will try and tinker around with the wording of the section. Thanks again. (As for you being another Tony, he did a lot to keep me in check on featured articles, but you are being pretty calm and civil, which is all I ask for in editors.) User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most are saying that the little ABC or NBC logos are a violation of fair-use, which I think is bull and if they are decoration, the little country flags would have to go as well. I would like to purpose (but am not sure as to how) new and very specific rules about fair-use logos, pictures, etc, and decorative images (like the ABC, etc logos and country flags). - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policies we have right now on Wikipedia:Fair use do not want the use of fair use images to be used for decorative purposes. The difference with the flag images is that they are public domain or under a free license, like the Creative Commons. There was a group of folks who want the flag images to be removed from infoboxes, but I need to find that link again. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, my opinion (and I know what they say about opinions :o)) is that if they are used on the main page (ie: CBS) that they should be used in small form on the TV station pages. But I understand that things could get nuts. You open the door and there will be a tiny logo for everything. Now, like the ownership, I think that is pushing it, but with the network, 100000watts.com kinda started that and it makes it easier on the eye and quicker to see. Little ABC logo, you know it's an ABC station, you won't have to look for the tiny Wiki link and for some that might be a good thing (hard of seeing, etc). But, I think it adds to the page.
I guess there could be a revision of the fair-use rules that would allow only network logos 50px and smaller for TV station pages and exclude the ownership logos and any others. But that is just one editor's opinion. - SVRTVDude(Yell - Toil)02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other editors will disagree with you. While some other websites, like 100000watts.com, have their own policies, I am not sure if their main goal is to have their website published worldwide. I still think many of the tiny logos in the infoboxes are a big strange (I see a tiny image in the Belarus infobox, but I can't take it out because of a wikiproject standard), so you are correct about folks doing it once and it explodes everywhere. While, I can see why the logos can be used, since there are many TV stations called ABC, so some wish to use a logo to say if it is the America, Australian or Philippines based station. But, under our fair use policy, the logos are meerly seen as decoration when used for the purposes that you wished to have them used. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
I've been working on this article, but you deleted it because you felt it was spam. Is there any chance I could get the text back so I can improve it? Thanks!
--Sueyen20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
("Return fire" -- how could I resist?! :-) Apropos your comment to my query about the English-language spelling of names for the area during the Russian Empire: I've only just encountered this material, and it's far too soon for me to form an informed opinion. Am waiting for the pundits to weigh in — is there a forum you might suggest alerting? I'd thought of posting a head's up on the Humanities Reference Desk or even the Language RD. The editing task is for an extra-Wikipedia assignment, but of course there can be applications here too. Further advice welcome. -- Deborahjay16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just posted a query on the Language Ref Desk — but what I don't understand is where on the pages of the Russian History WikiProject I might indicate the need for input from knowledgeable users. (Its Talk page seems to be primarily for discussion of the Project among its participants.) I'd appreciate guidance there — Thanks, Deborahjay05:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to this award have been enthusiastic so I've dropped a note at the Signpost tipline. I've identified you as the first recipient. DurovaCharge!02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proposal! Unfortunately, I simply doesn't have time for that :-( And I don't think that I'm right person for this role: adminship here (as in every big Wikipedia) requires too much bureaucracy and politics on my mind...--EugeneZelenko14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proposal! Unfortunately, I simply doesn't have time for that :-( And I don't think that I'm right person for this role: adminship here (as in every big Wikipedia) requires too much bureaucracy and politics on my mind...--EugeneZelenko14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you had an edit war? What does have to do with me, or the article today? There is no reason not to include more information. As far as I can see, the only reason is narrow minded xenophobia, as demonstrated in a pretty offensive tirade, for which you thanked the author (hopefully merely due to a lack of acquaintance with the subject matter). If you have some real arguments, then I'll be more than happy to discuss them, despite the ridiculousness and pettiness of the whole issue.--Methodius15:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the kind of information you added to the article, that was caused the last edit wars (which I had to mediate). Personally, at the way the article is right now, it would not be a good idea to add the information that Runjanin is a Serb. If the article was expanded, sure, I can see why it could be added. But, information like that should be focused at Runjanin's article. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus Wikiproject, old stuff
Brother Zachary! What would you think of the idea of a separate Belarus Wikiproject, and do you think there would be much support?
What made the project fail? Just too polarized because of politics, or what? I proposed a Ukraine Project and it was up and is running within three days, if I tested the water to see if there would be support, would you be involved?
Finally, I got this from a brother there, I don't understand the reason for the removal, but I figure you would be empathetic with the problem. Chris05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might know the Army slogan "The Army of One." Well, the BY Wikiproject is the "Wikiproject of One." As for the Belarusian Wikipedia, I got those emails a lot because of my work with the Wikimedia OTRS. I am in talks with some folks right now to see if we can get the content restored at a different location. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I had with the PH Government template is that it didn't allow for their works to be used commercial. I am not seeing that language in this one, but the no modifications might hurt us with this one. I'll ask around and get back to you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just blocked the user indefinitely per the WP:CSN board's decision, but from reading (and participating) in the discussion regarding possible sanctions that it would be a promise not to recreate the material (did he do that again?), and up to a week's block for violations of WP:CIVIL, with escalating blocks after the 2nd. Just looking for clarification for the block (he's not helping himself by immediately editing under the IP address), but just looking for clarification. Thanks! SirFozzie01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yall wanted to try a civility parole, but since he seems to wanting to break it hours after it was suggested, I deemed him persona non grata based on his prior behavior and the way he pretty much will disregard the project, thus, issuing the indef block. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem :) Just a bit confusing to see the CSN discussion referenced in the block log, when that was not what consensus was at the time. Sorry for bothering you! SirFozzie01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should be aware that there is further discussion on AN and on CN about this, you really ought to turn up and speak to what the circumstances were. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c12:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you've been involved in blocking or unblocking Tobias Conradi during the past six months or so, I'm making this courtesy edit on your talk page to notify you that there has recently been an inconclusive community sanction discussion, and I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was inappropriately uploaded before without a proper fair-use rationale, and was rightly deleted. However, I feel that it can fall under fair use guidelines as an irreplaceable picture illustrating this event firsthand, as per Image:West entrance.jpg and Image:VictimLibraryWindowColumbine.jpg, similar fair-use pictures used to illustrate Columbine High School massacre. Would you be willing to unsalt the page given the following fair-use rationale?
No; it violated the US law on fair use. There is a set of tests that the image must pass. Currently, the image fails the 4th test, since news organizations are using the photo for commercial purposes. If we use it now, one day after the event, the commercial use of the image will be undercut, thus not fair use. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Collegiate Times does not own this photograph. A Virginia Tech freshman student who took it on his cell phone owns it. Contrary to the proposed rationale above, he does not work for the CT. Based on his willingness to share it with others, I have little doubt that he would be willing to release it under a GFDL if asked, but I have been hesitant to do so for obvious reasons - do we really want to be emailing traumatized students? At any rate, while I fully agree 100% that all news media photos should be deleted on sight, this one is not a news media photo - it is an individual's photo that a news media agency was using with his permission. At any rate, salting it when the only uploader is an admin is somewhat of an overkill. I request that you reconsider your deletion of the image. Thank you. --BigDT (416) 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, against my better judgment, I have emailed the photographer and asked if he would be willing to release the image under the GFDL. My one foray into asking a student to release photos of the vigil @Tech was successful ... so who knows let's hope for 2/2. The main picture right now on Wikinews [15] was taken by a student at Tech. Obviously, as we all would, I would love to have this image released under a free license. I have no idea if that will happen, though. --BigDT (416) 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you needed time to ask for the image, that is fine. At least you are getting the hints I am trying to drop; we want to have free content and just having fair use after fair use photo on the article is not a way we should try to present ourselves to the world on such a high profile article as that now. I also let folks at Wikinews know that we need a better licensed photo of the shooter, since I still feel uneasy snipping the photo from the AP/Fox News. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me run this by you. The photographer replied to my email, said that he loves Wikipedia and would love for us to use his pic, and said he would release it under the GFDL and even copied/pasted the GFDL text from the image tag. However, he has added this requirement to the end of the email: "I am a full proponent of Wikipedia and would love to have my picture included on the website, provided my full name, William Chase Damiano, is incorporated into the image or used as a caption." A watermark is out of the question. I looked through our policies and couldn't find one specifically on caption credits. Is that an acceptable requirement? I asked him if he would be willing to waive it, at least for Wikimedia, as it would be virtually impossible to enforce with other languages. --BigDT (416) 02:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pop in. You could create a GFDL image copyright tag that states "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being just "Photograph by William Chase Damiano", with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License"." The Invariant Section would legally have to stay with the photograph in any GFDL reproduction of it and could effectively act as a byline (though it would not force the redistributer to format it as a byline). --Iamunknown02:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't even think we need to go that far. I don't know chapter and verse off hand, but I think the GFDL requires you to maintain copyright statements, so a copyright statement on the description page has to be maintained anyway, right? But the requirement that I don't know that we can live with is that his name be used as a caption. --BigDT (416) 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, another way you can do it is forward the email to WP:OTRS and I can tag the image as OTRS Confirmed and we can put the above what Iamunknown wrote. As long as we got the permission, the license and the conditions, and all of the conditions you stated are acceptable for Wikipedia, we can use it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zach! I noticed that you deleted Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg (per the above). I'm hoping that you could explain in greater detail why the fair use rationale was invalid. (I'm not a copyright expert, so please bear with me.)
You seem to imply above that we have a legal obligation to not compete with commercial entities, but I've only seen that concept applied to photographs that belong to the commercial entities themselves. In other words, press agencies own the copyrights and sell publication rights to affiliated news organizations (or the actual news organizations own the photographs outright).
Why would this concept apply to a photograph supplied by a police department (for which no member of the press owns the copyright)? Why do profit-making entities have a special legal entitlement to make a fair use claim that we can't? It's been suggested that the rationale ordinarily applied to mugshots applies here.
Thanks for your time! —David Levy13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mugshots are copyrighted unless otherwise stated. In Virginia, unless there is something I have not found yet, the mugshots are copyrighted. If we got the photo ourselves from the Police Department, then it would be fine, since it is coming from the source. But if we take it from the AP, then it would not be good. Plus, as I told the user above, since the event just happened two days ago, we cannot automatically claim fair use on something. Give it a few months, and once the clamor subsides, we could claim fair use. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mugshots usually are copyrighted, but we can claim fair use. That's my point.
Under the fair use doctrine, we cannot publish a copyrighted image if this will substantially reduce its value to the copyright holder. The news organizations do not hold this image's copyright. They're claiming fair use, and we have as much right as they have.
It makes absolutely no difference whether we received the file directly from the Virginia State Police (which released the image for this purpose) or from a news organization. The latter holds no copyright and cannot generate one by simply publishing the image.
I don't understand your argument about the event's recentness at all. What bearing does that have? The photograph will still be copyrighted in "a few months," and its subject won't be any deader than he is now. —David Levy15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the press agencies do not own the image in question. They possess no exclusivity, and their ability to sell it is not our concern. —David Levy19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this on the website of the Virginia State Police: "MEDIA making inquires regarding the Virginia Tech incident should call the Virginia Tech Media Line at (540) 231-5396 or visit their Web site at http://www.vt.edu/." Maybe we could ask the VTML and see if they could release us photographs of the shooting, in partiuclar, the shooter. If we can get it directly from the source, then I will stop my persuit about the image. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be of benefit only if the copyright holder agrees to release the image(s) under a free license. You're welcome to try. —David Levy00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zscout. I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take another look at the case of User:Orbicle, whom you blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. I'm hoping that some administrator will agree to unblock him, but I feel it's courteous to ask you, as you were the one who placed the initial block. Please don't think I don't take copyright seriously. I do, and was in fact involved in cleaning up part of the mess,[16] at Jkelly's request.[17] I just don't think that Orbicle was fully aware of how important our copyright policy is. There are people who imagine that if something is published on the internet, it's "up for grabs", so to speak. At the very least, I think we could say that he was surely motivated by a desire to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia, and not by a desire to get the Foundation involved in some messy lawsuit! This case was discussed at the Admin noticeboard, but was then archived, and I feel that Orbicle may have been simply forgotten. It was also discussed here at the WikiProject Opera talk page, as I was modifying some of Orbicle's edits, and someone wanted to know why. People felt there that he had done good work, apart from this serious violation, and that it would be a pity to leave him blocked permanently. An administrator turned down his request for an unblock, and then there was silence. I don't know if admins are watching his page.
I left a message for him, suggesting that linking to the page at Meta about avoiding copyright paranoia was not the best way to ask for an unblock.[18] Next time he logged on, which was quite recently, he removed it.[19] He didn't attempt to replace the unblock request template after his request was denied, but I'd like you to consider unblocking him now that the mess has been cleaned up. I really don't think there's any danger that he'll copy sources into Wikipedia again, and a lot of the work that he did was untainted. There were stubs and disambiguation pages that I think could only have been original. I'm sure he'd be prepared to promise to follow our copyright policy in future, but I hate to see people forced to grovel, and I think if he made that promise, it should be enough. I suppose it's not actually necessary for him to agree with all the policies in order to be a productive Wikipedian. It should be enough simply to follow them. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to nag, but . . . any chance that you'd consider it? I really don't think that further copyright violations are likely? ElinorD(talk)15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCAst- FA summaries..
Hi, Sorry to be a pain, but way-back you taped some Featured Article summaries
for WikiCast. The summaries I think if taken from En would "in the orginal" be
GFDL. A recording of them would might also thus need to be GFDL.
The reason why I made the redirect because of an OTRS email we got over the article and the contents. I'll will look at the contents later and see what to do next, if anything. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Didn't realise it was an OTRS e-mail. A complaint, I assume. Are you allowed to note that in the edit summary? FWIW, there are a number of article like that one, split out from John Kerry. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Kerry (daughter) and Talk:Peggy Kerry (sister). His brother is Cameron Kerry and his father is Richard Kerry and his mother is Rosemary Forbes Kerry. All a bit inconsistent really, but if you do any more merging, I only ask that you copy the information into the destination article and note the original article in the edit summary, so that people know where the new text has come from. Carcharoth18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rwendland/Image:Hussein_hangs.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Welcome3.gif){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:RussiaUralTransparent.png&diff=4099084&oldid=4092340){kind=link}
){kind=link}
