Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:32, 29 August 2007

This user is a member of the United States Armed Forces and may be away from Misplaced Pages for long periods of time, but will most likely return. Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while.

User:Videmus Omnia/status/template

Archives
Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007

Transformers Season's 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 jpg

You made a mistake about the fair use rational. The fair use rational only applies to photos that were uploaded after May 4, 2006. These photos were uploaded before May 4. I am going to take the no rationals off my photos. Next time look at the upload date so next time you won't make that same mistake again. Thank You.--Stco23 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry - it applies to all non-free content. See WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my other messages and I know that you have been a wikipedian for 3 months. I took off my old messages, but do not put back those fair use rational messages on my photos. I promise that I will have those photos with fair use rationals sometime within the next two days. I am very upset with this rule that you have to put fair use rational on every single photo that is Non-Free no matter what date you upload it. One editor told me that only photos that were uploaded after May 4, 2006 needed the Fair Use Rational. I hope I do not have to put fair use rational on every single photo that I have uploaded so far. I will be so angry. I am so angry about this and I hope you understand this. Thank You.--Stco23 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, a lot of people were unhappy about the Foundation's change in policy regarding non-free media. Indeed, I believe your statement about media uploaded prior to May 2006 was correct at one time, but it's changed. I'm afraid you will have to put a rationale on all non-free media you've uploaded in the past. I won't go back through your upload log, but I recommend that you do so. There are currently bots running (and others being coded) to examine all non-free images for valid rationales, so it's only a matter of time before you get notified about them. You do not need rationales for any free images (GFDL or PD) that you have uploaded. Videmus Omnia 13:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with my Fair Use Rationals. Let me know.--Stco23 15:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Big error on my part, I've gone back and fixed it. Videmus Omnia 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and by the way there is not chance that they will be resized because that was the best i could get it. If you wanted me to split them, then that would be a problem. Thank You.--Stco23 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally the resizing is done by a handful of volunteers who work those requests - if you'd like to split them, that's up to you. Non free pictures should be limited to .1 megapixel or less (about 315x315 or so) per WP:NFCC#3. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I put them together is to save space and not to have many photos on one article. Do you think that these photos needs a resize because of them being too big. Let me know.--Stco23 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please - see my message above for the recommended size. Videmus Omnia 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's stupid because my camera is a high res camera that puts photos on the computer. It's a stupid rule because I try on myspace to resize my photo and I get crap from myspace saying that I need to resize my photos again and I hate it. I hope you know how I feel about that.--Stco23 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand - you don't need to be the one to resize the image, someone else will do it. Don't worry, the resize request does not mean the images will be deleted, it's just housekeeping. Videmus Omnia 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Will the resizing ruin the quality of my photos, because if it does I will be very upset.--Stco23 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It will just make them smaller. Videmus Omnia 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I did my own resizing of my uploads of those DVD covers they are not as small, but they are not as big as they once were. DVD covers have to show detail, but Fuzzy510 made my uploads very small that they showed no detail and looked like crap, so I did my own resizing of my uploads so that these DVD covers do show detail and not look like crap. I hope this resizing change that I made makes you happy. Thank You.--Stco23 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users and TFA archives

Hi there. I have the talk page of several inactive users on my watchlist, so I saw the tags that you put at User talk:Mirlen. Is there a way for you (and others) to check whether a user is inactive or not? It wouldn't take long, and you could then try and find somewhere else to notify as well. It seems a bit of a waste of your time leaving notifications that probably won't be seen. I would suggest Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Wars in this case. PS. Did you see the reply I wrote to your post at WP:AN about the pictures in the TFA archives? Have a look at what I did at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). I haven't got round to listing the non-free ones, but I did see a few. I estimate of the 1277 blurbs, about one or two a month might need checking - so about 50 or so cases where the images should be removed or a free alternative used. I still think blurbs for article about images (eg. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 10, 2007), should be a WP:NFCC exception. :-) Carcharoth 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching your post at TFA - wow, that's a lot of work, thanks for taking it on! On the notifications, those are done by script, so I don't see that the user is inactive until after the message is posted. I recommend that folks at the WikiProject watchlist the images they are interested in. Videmus Omnia 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet, go through and fix the rationales. :) Videmus Omnia 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no interest in Star Wars pics. When you get to the Middle-earth pics, I might take more interest... I have been mulling over the possibility of sensible non-free use strategies to limit excessive non-free use. Something like, for a music performer, the minimum number of photos would be a current picture (if available), and one of them in performance (if retired). The former would be left for someone to eventually snap a free pic. But the latter would usually have to be fair use if they are no longer performing. For things like the fictional projects (Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc), it could be something like a maximum of 2 fair-use images from a particular movie, and no more. And a maximum of 1 non-free image per 5 articles, up to a maximum of (say) 20 (depending on the size of the project). That way, it would still be possible to purge Misplaced Pages of excessive non free use, while still allowing some and forcing people to carefully pick what is really needed. Kind of like a non free use rationale for a set of images for a topic area. Does that sound reasonable? I can just see the license now: "The use of these 20 images, and only these 20 images, to illustrate the XYZ topic area, and used in these articles, is considered fair use..." The reason I'm noting this here? I only just thought of it! Carcharoth 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean - it's really subjective. I designed the template {{non-free}} to use in cases like this, it really takes human judgement by someone who is familiar with non-free content policy, which not a lot of Wikipedians take interest in. Betacommand said he would think about a bot to count the number of non-free images in articles, but it may be a while. Any sort of policy change would be contentious, there are already a lot of old heads freaking out about non-free content enforcement. Oh, and above, I didn't mean that you should fix the rationales, I meant the WikiProject people should. But nobody does anything until the images are up for deletion, then they usually scream at the person who tagged the noncompliant images. <sigh> Oh, well - cheers, and thanks for your rational inputs on this issue! Videmus Omnia 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential use of a bot

I do not know if you are using an unauthorized bot to make the fair use tagging but I'd recommend the use of an authorized bot. It would be easier for you. :) -- Cat 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not using a bot, just a monobook script. Videmus Omnia 11:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

USS Enterprise XCV 330

I noticed you tagged Image:USS Enterprise (XCV 330).jpg with "should be replaced with a smaller version". The image already is a low resolution copy of the original art, and any lower resolution would make it impossible to read the ships full name and registry, which is the reason the image was added to the article. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard for non-free images seems to be 0.1 megapixel or less, which is about 315x315 (or so the experts who do the rescaling tell me. I think it would still be readable at that resolution - if not, would it be possible to crop the image to ensure it only includes the required portion? Videmus Omnia 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no standard at all. That's simply bull shit. Matthew 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding source of Image:Ferengis1.jpg

I saw that you tagged this as missing a source. I'm just wondering how detailed a source specification is needed. Based on the background scenery, I'm sure it's from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm also pretty sure that it's from the episode Rascals, though I can't currently verify this, as I'm not close to my box-set for at least a couple of days. Would it be sufficient to state that it's a screenshot from the Star Trek: The Next Generation series? --Pekaje 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It has to be verifiable - I think that might be too vague, based on what I've seen in the past. I think I might have that episode around somewhere, I'll try to find something as well. Videmus Omnia 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't verify that it is from that episode, I suggest replacing it with this one. It has a verifiable source, and I actually think it's a better image because it shows Ferengi of different ages. --Pekaje 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly fine to state it's from ST:TNG. Unless soldier boy has something to back himself up that it isn't? Matthew 15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, thanks. And I'm not a soldier, or a boy. Videmus Omnia 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Image:MusicalTheater3.jpg, Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg, and Image:ChorusLine.jpg all have very detailed rationales for using them under "fair use," and each one is used in two articles about subjects related to them. I noticed you are questioning their validity. Why? ConoscoTutto 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I included the reason in the 'disputed' template', but basically I feel they're not in compliance with WP:NFCC#8 in the Musical theatre article. Videmus Omnia 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So if others feel these images do comply with WP policies, they are free to revert your removals? Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what's happened. Videmus Omnia 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you be a little more specific. I see nothing in WP:NFCC#8 to suggest these images don't belong in the Musical theatre article. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the images were removed from the article, would it be significantly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic Musical theatre? I don't believe it would be. Videmus Omnia 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above seems to me a completely new argument which states that you think the images are superfluous, in other words, your changes are editorial changes. Isn't the correct way before making wholesale editorial changes to discuss it on the Talk pages first and reach consensus? Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the images were allowed to remain, would they be significantly detrimental to Misplaced Pages? No. They are iconic images of classic musical productions and definitely belong in an article about musical theatre. I'm concerned that you're being overly diligent in your pursuit of invalid images and ultimately will damage good articles by removing them. These are images that have been in place a long time, so I don't understand why you're questioning them now. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they remain, they're detrimental to the objective of keeping the encyclopedia free - see the Foundation's licensing resolution. I know that you're passionate about having a quality article, I respect that. But using free images instead of copyrighted ones will benefit everyone. Videmus Omnia 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with using images of album covers and publicity posters to illustrate an article about musical theatre? The producers of these shows/albums are more than happy for these images to be distributed on the internet, as it can only increase the interest of the public in seeing and hearing these shows. In addition, most of these images are already widely distributed on the internet. It is amazing to me that Misplaced Pages editors should try to remove obviously qualified fair use images from articles created in good faith by other editors. If you have any free images that would illustrate this article, by all means add them. Otherwise, I am certain that you have better ways to improve Misplaced Pages than to remove images that pose no danger whatever to the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment immediately above yours. The Foundation has directed that copyrighted content will be kept to an absolute minimum in order to keep the encyclopedia free - I didn't make the policy, I'm sorry. Videmus Omnia 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IGNORE. There are no free images available, or we would be happy to use them. Why would you spend so much energy to destroy something that will delight our readers? -- Ssilvers 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIARM - "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Misplaced Pages for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.". And there are free images available - Musical theatre already has public domain images for illustrations. I'm not attempting to destroy anything - just trying to keep our encyclopedia free. Videmus Omnia 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have free images, please tell us where they are. Otherwise, I think that these images do help the reader to better understand musical theatre, and removing them will hurt Misplaced Pages and deprive its readers of useful information that cannot adequately be explained in text. Thanks --Broadwaygal 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but arguing with me isn't going to change the policy. Once again, please see the non-free content criteria and the Foundation's resolution, linked above. It's not enough that the images are useful or helpful, they have to be necessary. Videmus Omnia 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Videmus: I don't think you understand the policy. The policy is not to delete all non-free images, it is to encourage the addition of free images where available. I do not believe that you are correct that there are free images for Wicked, Hair, etc., and you have not pointed us to any of them. Images of these copyrighted properties are only available under the doctrine of fair use (an exception to Section 107 of the U.S. copyright law), and Misplaced Pages policy DOES allow fair use images where there are no alternates. If you can point us to some free images then, by all means, please do so and we will happily exchange them. But I do not know of any that exist for the modern musicals. Please remove the dispute tags until you have identified free images. -- Ssilvers 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the policy, as most of the work I do is with images - not just removing non-compliant ones, but obtaining free images as well. See my user page. Why do you need to decorate the article with those particular copyrighted images? Why can't you use more public-domain images, or maybe obtain free images from lesser-known musical productions? Those are just suggestions. We can back and forth on this for days (I'm already tired of repeating myself in this conversation), but it won't change the policy that non-free content must be kept to an absolute minimum. Videmus Omnia 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Using images from some non-notable private theatricals wouldn't be much encyclopedic, don't you think?SuperElephant 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the history of musical theatre and describes some of the most important musicals. After 1923, the publicity posters and album covers of these musicals are under copyright, so there are no such free images. The article is not supposed to describe "lesser-known musical productions", it is supposed to describe the most historically significant ones. These images are the best way to illustrate those productions. The images being used are all comfortably within the "fair use" doctrine, AND they are not readily replaceable, as you must know by now, since, after all this, you have not been able to point us to even one free image. I know you must be trying to act in good faith here, but you are only creating an issue where none exists. These images (or similar fair use images) are the best ones to illustrate this article. It would not even be permissable for a person to go to a Broadway show and take photographs of the productions. In addition, most of these productons are closed now, and no free images are being contributed to the public domain until the copyright expires. Would you kindly withdraw the dispute tags? -- Ssilvers 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree on this. I think it's best to wait; an uninvolved administrator will eventually make the determination on whether or not the rationales are valid for the usage you would like to make. Videmus Omnia

Indeed, it would have been better to seek authoritative input and community discussion before you embarked on this crusade. Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a crusade, just trying to help keep the encyclopedia free. If the removals are uncontested, then there's no point in seeking outside opinions. There are so many noncompliant non-free images that WP:BRD seems to be the best way forward in cases like this. Videmus Omnia 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The BRD procedure is inappropriate in a case where other editors are interested in the issue and communicating with you. At this point, the consensus is clear for you to stop deleting images from musical theatre-related articles. If you point out to me that an image is missing a needed fair use rationale, I will gladly add it, OK? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's nothing personal. If a non-free image doesn't have a rationale for use in a certain article, it has to be removed from that article. I presume the article is being closely watched by several editors, and I'm stating what I'm doing in the edit summaries, and why. Videmus Omnia 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is disagreeing with you about this. These images HAVE RATIONALES and are legitimately useful in these articles. If someone has forgotten to add a needed fair use rationale to an image, we can easily add it. Please reconsider your position, which seems to all of these editors writing here to be a distortion of the intent of the rules. We all want to make Misplaced Pages better, and the consensus is that it is better to include these images in the articles discussing the history of musicals; not to tag them for deletion. We all agree that if there WERE any free images that illustrated the historical place of these musicals, we would happily use them intstead. Think about the purpose of this online encyclopedia: People can read about this subject online and see images that graphically illustrate the subject much better than, e.g., Brittanica can do. These images qualify under the fair use doctrine (an exception to the copyright law), and it is proper and useful that we supply these images to our readers. -- Ssilvers 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have not deleted any non-free images from Musical theatre that had a fair use rationale written for Musical theatre. When I disagreed with the rationale, I disputed it on the talk page, which is the correct process. This was met by other editors (I won't name names) simply deleting the 'disputed' tags from image pages, which can be considered vandalism. Can you please follow process instead of constantly arguing on my talk page? I promise I am not going to change my mind on this interpretation of the non-free content policy. Not everyone disagrees with me about this interpretation, only the !owners of the Musical theatre article. Videmus Omnia 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No one owns articles in Misplaced Pages. There are only editors who are trying to create useful content and editors who are trying to delete useful content. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have been putting your notices on the talk page of a blocked editor. If you must tag images, please put the notice on the talk page of the article from which you wish to remove the image. Then, people watching the article can respond instead of having to pick it up from the page of the blocked uploader. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but under what authority does your tag make this statement: "Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, the image will be deleted or removed from some uses after Monday, 27 August 2007"? I think that a fair-use rationale HAS been supplied. You disagree. Will you kindly take this text out of your template? -- Ssilvers 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my tag, it's a standard template that everyone uses, I don't know who wrote it. My sentence in tag clearly states that I'm disputing the rationale that's in place. Videmus Omnia 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you opened a case at ]. I guess interested editors should post further comments there. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an army!

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an army!SuperElephant 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - good thing I'm not in the Army! Videmus Omnia 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Army would have to be the least intimidating military force ever. "Company. . . Revert!" – Quadell 17:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

Uh...notice board?--Angel David 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI might be a good place. Or perhaps a request for comment. Videmus Omnia 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Drakkhen non-free images

Just wondering on how you arrived at the two or three figure as being appropriate for the Drakkhen article. Cheers Vranak 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think even that would be too many. One is probably enough to show the style of the game, as non-free media needs to be kept to an absolute minimum per WP:NFCC#3a. Videmus Omnia 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this is contradicted somewhat by the article gudelines at WikiProject Video Games:
"Screenshots are great for enhancing the comprehensiveness of articles, and all computer and video game articles should have at least a couple."
I think three is a reasonable number, especially considering that one of them is from a different system and company (Amiga). Goldenband 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I could maybe go for that - say, a title screen in an infobox (which needs to be added), and one image showing the game appearance in each incarnation, provided there is some non-OR commentary on the appearance of the games. Videmus Omnia 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I give up. I was the steward of the Drakkhen page for a while, but you've pushed me off my perch. Do what you will with it. Vranak 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Vranak - I hope that all this hasn't taken the wind out of your sails too much. I think we've come to a reasonable compromise -- title screen, French version, and two different gameplay screens (outdoor and indoor) from the SNES version. Videmus Omnia, will this work for you? (RIP canine head, but so it goes.) Meanwhile, I've made some copy edits to the article that I think tighten things up a bit. Goldenband 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better - thanks! Videmus Omnia 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we're cool. Vranak 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Although, on second thought -- I don't honestly see what all the fuss is about. The move to take down pictures is in my mind driven by ideology rather than the reality of the situation: i.e. who would really care that the video game they worked on 15-20 years ago is well-covered by illustrations on Misplaced Pages? Vranak 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is a common one. Basically what happened is that the Foundation came out with a new resolution a few months ago that non-free content has to kept to an absolute minimum. It's not about legal exposure, it's about creating an encyclopedia that's free for anyone to use, re-use, or distribute. I understand this policy is frustrating to editors who care deeply about the quality of illustrations on particular articles - hopefully we've found a good compromise. Videmus Omnia 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand. Vranak 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your tagging of Image:James Doohan 1980s.jpg

Please try at a minimum to give notice on the articles where the images you tag are being used, either by using Template:Deletable image-caption or through an article talk page notice, or both. Notifying the uploader alone is not an effective means of ensuring that the problem gets corrected, particularly when the image was uploaded years ago, because there is no guarantee that an uploader will remain interested in the image or involved in Misplaced Pages at all. I've already taken care of it for this image. Postdlf 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

That's just plain ornery and wrong. First you call for everyone to "let an uninvolved admin decide" whether to keep the images. Then when one does show up and decide to keep them, you rush off and WP:IFD it. And you wonder why people are opposing you in the discussions? Your stock has gone way down in my eyes. FeloniousMonk 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how listing this image for wider consensus is disruptive. To what forum should I have taken my concern? Videmus Omnia 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please. You and I both know that there's broad consensus already expressed on the talk pages and elsewhere to keep these images, and your zealousness on this image belies your claim of simply seeking broader community input. Looks to me you don't like being challenged on these matters and aren't willing to accept outcomes that you disagree with; neither are useful attributes on the project. FeloniousMonk 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about my personality or motivations, this is nothing personal. I have no problem with non-free content that meets the criteria. There is no such consensus as you refer to above, see the discussion at WP:FUR. Could you please answer my question above, or is it that you don't like being challenged on your decisions? Videmus Omnia 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Star Trek Human Montage.JPG

Ok I got you're message, but I can't say I understand all the legal Mumbo Jumbo. As I stated here Talk:Human (Star Trek) over a year ago, I created the image by simply combining several pictures which were already on Misplaced Pages. I assumed that, seeing as those pics were ok, putting them together wouldn't be a problem. So are you saying that it's not ok? Anyway, you seemed to be saying in your message that it might be ok, if it is irreplaceable. Well I don't know if it's irreplaceable, I mean I guess someone could make a similar montage, but I have no idea what the legalities of that will be either. Are you saying that to be used, all the pictures used must be totally free? I somewhat doubt that we'll just find a suitable image out there, remember the criteria I was going from, the pictures has to represent a significant amount of the racial and gender diversity of humans on Star Trek as well as show humans from different periods of history, to get a complete idea of the species. I mean, I doubt we're just going to find such a thing laying around, someone's going to have to make it, this was my attempt. As I say, I don't know the legalities, so can you tell me if either: it is possible not to delete this image?, or if not possible, then how can I make an acceptable one? --Hibernian 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, how do Star Trek humans differ from "real world" humans, in regards to appearance? Videmus Omnia 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek women have a significantly larger average bust size. This fact cannot be adequately portrayed by text. (Okay, I'm joking.) – Quadell 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I included an appropriate free image to convey this. Omission of this image would cause significant detriment to the readers' understanding of the topic. Videmus Omnia 04:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... Well to answer your question, they don't differ as far as I know. But I don't quite see what that has to do with anything. Anyway you haven't answered any of my questions, can you please do so? --Hibernian 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the digression...anyway, what I meant is that, unless there's a reason we need to have a copyrighted image of a Star Trek human because it's impossible to have an free image that gets across the same idea to the reader, it's considered replaceable per WP:NFCC#1. I understand the Star Trek costumes are a concern - would it be possible to have a free image of a cosplayer like the female Andorian? Or maybe the free image on Uhura?

Also I think the publicity photos that this image was derived from were deleted as having no good source, which is a problem as well. Videmus Omnia 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT again

Now you have attempted to have the fair use images deleted; failing that, you have placed dispute tags on them that say to remove the tag when a fair use rationale is given; after the fair use rationale was given, you have continued to refuse to remove the tag and suggested that other editors who were following the instructions on the tag were committing vandalism; faced with a consensus against what you are doing you have opened an FUR in an attempt to get editors who don't care about this area of Misplaced Pages involved; and now you have placed an ugly copyright tag on our flagship article. Why are you doing all this? This is so wrong. We understand that free images are better than fair use images, but there aren't any available to illustrate this article (or the parts of it that pertain to musicals after 1923). This is very sad and hurts the readers of Misplaced Pages. Shame on you. -- Ssilvers 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel very bad, but I'm only trying to ensure the article complies with policy. How is it disruptive to add an applicable tag or to request input at an appropriate forum? Have you read the comments at WP:FUR? Videmus Omnia 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have 20,000 edits on Misplaced Pages in a variety of areas. My own policy is that if an edit would make me feel bad, I don't make it. Listen to your conscience. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not tear it down. These images are legal, and the policy reason to exclude them (assuming that you are right and I am wrong) is foolish. The owners of the copyrights would never release them to the public domain, but at the same time, they would be very happy that their promotional materials are featured in this article. This article educates people about an interesting part of our culture - musical theatre - that involves a synthesis of literature, music, dance and visual arts. What possible harm can there be in letting people see how these musicals are marketed and (often) contain iconinc photos of performers in them or graphics that are famously connected with the genre musical theatre. I do not think you are helping the encyclopedia in this instance. OK, I'm an inclusionist. I think that if we add stuff to Misplaced Pages (as long as it's legal), then we can refine and improve it over time. If we just delete stuff, then there is a gaping hole that could have informed readers and encouraged them to join the project. Sorry that we disagree here, but I think this is very wrong. -- Ssilvers 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• (Butting in. . .) We have to follow policy, even when we don't agree with that policy. I personally think that our non-free content policy is very wise, even if it does make things more difficult in some cases. But the "gaping hole" that is left by a deleted image encourages the creation of free content. We're not just the greatest encyclopedia -- we're also a "free content" encyclopedia. – Quadell 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think the goal of being "free content" is better/more important than the goal of excelling? What is wrong with fair use content? -- Ssilvers 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Foundation has told us (I linked the resolution in the 'Images' thread above). Videmus Omnia 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the resolution recognized what we are doing here. The resolution says: "3... EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." This is exactly the case here. We are illustrating historically significant events in the development of musical theatre with "identifying copyrighted contemporary works". -- Ssilvers 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical theatre is not a copyrighted work, it's a genre. That's why, for example, a poster is OK in the article about Moulin Rouge!, which is copyrighted, but not in Musical theatre, which is not copyrighted. Videmus Omnia 18:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an article "about copyrighted contemporary works" (at least with respect to the post-1923 works, which is the most important era in the history of musical theatre). You are bending over backwards to interpret the resolution as excluding these images for this article. Your interpretation of the resolution is a deletionist interpretation and, as I have said (so I'll try to shut up now), it is not helping Misplaced Pages, it is hurting it. -- Ssilvers 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> We're not going to convince each other. Let's stop wasting time and bytes and leave the decision to others. With respect - Videmus Omnia 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of image copyrights...

...Image:Videmus Omnia.jpg and Image:Videmus Omnia 3.JPG are tagged as "self made". While I am willing to take your word for it, it really isn't obvious how you, the subject of the images, made them (especially the first one). It would definitely be helpful if you added a couple words explaining ("made with automatic camera and tripod" or whatever). Just a word to the wise - you know how people are about copyrights...someone, at some point in time will question them. Guettarda 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Videmus Omnia 17:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, if I may generalize a little on the above: At least with fair use images, you know that what you are getting is legal for the encyclopedia to use. With supposedly "free" images, often you only have someone's word for it that they are free. -- Ssilvers 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True dat. Videmus Omnia 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor?

I tagged Image:Etam-youth-thong.jpg as replaceable, and the uploader, User:VigilancePrime seems to vociferously disagree. We've had some back-and-forth on our talk pages. When I tagged as replaceable several other underwear images that he uploaded, he seems to have taken it personally. Could you give your opinion on the issue? (If you think I'm in the wrong, by all means, say so.) All the best, – Quadell 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do, if, in return, you could please stop by WP:FUR and offer your generally calm and level-headed input to some very contentious discussions currently going on there. Your inputs are generally so good that my private nickname for you is "The Fire Extinguisher". :) Videmus Omnia 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but my fire extinguisher seems to on the fritz. Who would have thought that a straightforward topic like Intelligent Design would have attracted so much controversy? :-) Anyway, it's your turn. – Quadell 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, I've posted the two controversial images at IfD here. Videmus Omnia 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

reduce

What is the maximum number of megapixels that can be used in a non-free image on Misplaced Pages in accordance with the Non-free_content policy? Image:Cardassian logo plain.png is only about 0.6 megapixels. If I were to print that out at 300dpi (85µm) that'd only be about a 3"x2" (8cm x 5cm) picture. This size does not sound too large. Jecowa 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears fine now - looks like Pekaje reduced it. I'm not sure where the exact guidelines are - the experts who fulfill the resize requests have told me that a rough rule of thumb is about 0.1 megapixels (about 315x315 for a square image). There would be exceptions granted, I believe, if a higher resolution were required for understanding. I think a guideline would be that a non-free image shouldn't be any larger on the image page than it is in the article where it's displayed. Videmus Omnia 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the above only applies to non-free images - free images should be at the highest resolution possible - up to (I believe) 5Mb file size. Videmus Omnia 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had this question posed many times, so I'll answer as well. Generally speaking, the consensus appears to be that non-free content should be limited to approximately 0.1 megapixel and some 300-400 pixels on the longest dimension. One should also consider the context an image is used in, and make sure that it isn't wildly large or too small for the intended use. We generally consider only what is adequate for the web-site, and it is deliberate that printouts should be of inferior quality (so for instance, CD covers downloaded from Misplaced Pages can't be used for piracy). With regards to the specific image, 200x300 is easily enough for the intended use in the article, so I have rescaled it. Hope this helps. --Pekaje 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Revenge of the Jedi poster

I understand your concerns. That's actually what I was working on at the time you sent your message. I've replaced the image with a lower resolution version. :) The Filmaker 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Videmus Omnia 01:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is Lucasfilm Ltd. as it was the film's production company and the source of it's marketing. I've added it to the fair-use rationale. The Filmaker 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Just popping by to say hiya. Noticed you on someone else's talkpage, figured it'd be nice to drop off some flowers. Have a great day! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I really appreciate it, people rarely stop by to say something nice. :) Videmus Omnia 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for helping out with the Matthew situation. I didn't want to complain about something so idiotic, but it was starting to get under my skin. Videmus Omnia 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Repeatedly incivility is not something to be tolerated. As a community, we're supposed to respect each other.

By the way, congrats for the great work you've been doing in defending the free nature of the project. Your example renews my energies. --Abu badali 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto! Videmus Omnia 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading of photos for the Wichita Massacre page

Hi, you sent me a message stating that I did not provide a rationale for why the images I uploaded are covered under 'fair use'. However, I did already provide those rationales:

Image:Carr_brothers.jpg: "Fair use -- image of convicted persons distributed by law enforcement to news agencies worldwide."

Image:Wichita_massacre_victims.jpg: "Fair useimage of deceased persons distributed by law enforcement to news agencies worldwide."

-- J.R. Hercules 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J.R. - thanks for getting in touch with me. Before I get too in-depth in this, please take a look at WP:FURG, which explains the procedure in-depth for fair-use rationales. But basically non-free image rationales have to satisfy all ten of the criteria in WP:NFCC. A couple of the problems that jump out at me right away is that the copyright holder of the images is not identified (WP:NFCC#10a), the article in which they are to be used isn't specified (WP:NFCC#10c - easy fix), and there's no explanation as to why the non-free images are needed in the article (WP:NFCC#8). Please let me know if you need any help with this. Videmus Omnia 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all right

I already apologizied. I was wrong and Durin was right!--Angel David 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please just leave the talkpage alone. This will all just fade away. Now go write an encyclopedia! :) Videmus Omnia 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ducati_mach1_800.jpg

From the :

800x600 Reduction of 1280x1024 PR photograph from Ducati Motor Holdings Website HERITAGE

izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the URL? Videmus Omnia 02:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Please stop harrassing me and attempting to subvert the Featured Misplaced Pages Article Film Booking Offices of America. Thank you.—DCGeist 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you offer something to substantiate your (rather serious) charge? I've never heard of you or that article until less than an hour ago. Videmus Omnia 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

::Your recent efforts to delete a substantial portion of the content of this Featured Article--which is in precisely the same state that it was when it was vetted and passed by the FAC process just over two months ago--constitutes prima facie evidence of your intent to subvert it. As the Misplaced Pages contributor who has clearly assumed responsibility for maintaining the article and its contents, this series of unprovoked attacks on the article constitute effective harrassment of me. Whatever your motivation, your behavior is a clear and serious affront to the Misplaced Pages mission, its community, and its spirit.—DCGeist 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't take content disputes as a personal attack or harassment. A calm response to something to disagree with will go far to resolving the issue. --Haemo 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misperceive this as a "content dispute." This isn't about content; it's about a user's mission that is really quite oblivious to the spirit of Misplaced Pages and the specifics of its content. User has decided that significant content of a recently promoted Featured Article should be deleted for the sort of basic reasons that would have been considered and passed on in the FAC process. He has done this without taking up his concerns on the article's Talk page or with the person obviously primarily responsible for maintaining it according to Misplaced Pages FA standards. The result is an egregious and pointless waste of Wikipedians' time in addition to, as I spelled out quite carefully, effective harassment.—DCGeist 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious content dispute. Your incivility and disrespect for the views of other editors are not helping anyone here — least of all, yourself. If the case is as clear as you make it, then the discussion should be over quickly. A good faith disagreement with another editor is not the end of the world, nor is it an excuse to level a whole variety of personal attacks against them. --Haemo 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, with respect, if three warnings against personal attacks haven't worked, I don't think a fourth one will. Videmus Omnia 05:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize for flying off the handle the other night. I had been being Wikistalked for real earlier in the day and, without thinking, connected that set of incidents with this matter. As a result, I went well over the line in using uncivil and inflammatory language in addressing you here and on the noticeboard (where I'll apologize next). My belligerent behavior clouded the more important issue: I do believe that the way the IfD process is currently operating is deeply contrary to both the spirit of Misplaced Pages and to its ultimate purpose. As you can see, I have struck out much of my intemperate language above, while leaving the material I largely stand by (even if I might have turned a phrase or two slightly differently). I certainly admire your work in increasing Misplaced Pages's store of free imagery--that's a truly valuable endeavor. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, thank you for your gracious apology. It is unreservedly accepted. Videmus Omnia 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have requested a deletion review for Image:MargaretWilson.jpg. You may wish to comment at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 23 gadfium 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented there, thanks. Videmus Omnia 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Sorry to bother you - WP:IUP#Format says that PNG is preferable for screenshots...should existing screenshots in JPG format ever be tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}}, or should the uploader be contacted to request a PNG version be uploaded, and the JPG left alone if they won't do so or are absent? Thanks! Videmus Omnia 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer this question. JPEG screenshots should almost always be tagged with {{BadJPEG}} or {{ShouldBePNG}}. Contacting the uploader can also help. —Remember the dot 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanxs for the message regarding the screenshot I uploaded. Unfortunately, I do not have any PD pics of Christian Finnegan. =(

Also, according to your user page, you're part of the US Air Force. If it's not too much trouble, can you please add your name to Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by military branch? Thank you for your time and have fun editing! Jumping cheese 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow...you're good at getting pics under free license. Have fun editing/uploading I'll see you around. Thanxs for the message too. =) Jumping cheese 23:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dixie Square Mall Interior.jpg

You have tagged this (Image:Dixie Square Mall Interior.jpg) as being replacable, but from what I gather, there is a couple things. This is now private property, a condemed building so you may not enter unless you tresspass. Also, some of the mall has been destroyed already, so I am not sure that this is a replacable image and can easy fall into Fair Use.--Kranar drogin 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The building still apparently exists in some form, so someone could make or obtain a free image. The article or fair use rationale doesn't specify why it's necessary to show the state of the mall in 2004. Videmus Omnia 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Ferrell images

I've corrected a few problems relating to the Will Ferrell images you tagged. I provided Fair Use rationales for two, and moved two images to a more appropriate section of the Will Ferrell article. Hopefully everything is now in compliance. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Drewcifer3000 05:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Drewcifer, thanks for getting in touch with me. The placement of the images is definitely better and the rationales are hugely improved. I have a concern that Image:OldSchool.jpg accompanies an article section that really doesn't discuss his role in the film in such a way that a non-free image would be required for reader understanding (per WP:NFCC#8). Videmus Omnia 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Latin

Videmus Omnia for the Air Force. Semper Fidelis for the Marines. I don't know that the other services have Latin mottos. I wonder what the Latin translation would be for "The caissons go rolling along?" :) Baseball Bugs 06:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there even a Latin term for "caisson"? (It's been a long time since the Jesuits had a crack on hammering Latin into my head.) Are new Latin words invented for more modern concepts? I wonder what the Latin is for "computer" or "space station". In any event, with all due respect to my Army brethren, I don't think Latin is in common usage in their ranks. </good-natured interservice rivalry>. Videmus Omnia 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for stalking, but) may I ask you why the (US-)Americans, the Brits and the Germans are so obsessed with Latin words? In Italy Latin was taught at "middle school" to students aged 11 - 14 y/o, that happened until 1977/78, when it was abolished. Ppl "jumped for the joy" (an italian idiomatic sentence) after that abolition. Despite what the establishment tries to make you believe, in Italy common ppl and also the greatest part of University students hate old latin (with the exception of a very little minority comprising old-fashioned "intellectuals"), for a lot of reasons that maybe are even difficult to understand if you have ever lived here. That happens both in Southern and Northern Italy.

This is a personal note: if I were in UK or USA and I were offered a career with USAF or RAF, I would say "no thank you", just to avoid to listen to those mottoes or read Latin terms that are written on badges and so on. But please do not take it personally, I do not hate the military staff or smg like that. Best regards.--Doktor Who 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, Latin and Greek are regarded as signs of a comprehensive education in the English-speaking world, and Latin mottoes, for some reason, are believed to lend an air of respectability to any enterprise. I'm not sure of the origins of that belief, but I'm sure it's very old. Videmus Omnia 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewel ad

The reason I posted it is that various other posters thought Jewel was still using Albertsons' slogans and had reverted the slogan I provided which was the correct one. Without the ad, I do not have a verifiable source for the assertion. Now, if the other people reflected in the history would leave the template alone.... However, I do not have a text source for the assertion; Jewel did not update their Albertson's created website. Busjack 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - interesting point! I don't see any commentary on the slogan aside from two mentions of it - is this controversial enough to need a source? If so, I recommend cropping the image to just the slogan part (It's hard to read in the current image) and including a reason in the use rationale as to why the image of the slogan is needed. Videmus Omnia 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if this is the way you plan to go, please leave a comment at the IfD page - thanks! Videmus Omnia 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

I response you to this messege. From the EMail to the site of the band it was told me that the name of the fan who took it and sended it to them is Genadiy, but he didn't tell them his lastname. M.V.E.i. 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the image? Also, if you have an e-mail permission, please forward it to WP:OTRS - see this page and section for instructions on how to do this. Videmus Omnia 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Shure i can. Here http://littletragedies.com/news_e.htm I didnt keep what they responsed me on EMail, but you can ask if you like on their EMail info@littletragedies.com M.V.E.i. 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they sended me 3 photos and said i can use them all wherever i like, but i chose this one because it's the best quality and it's their current line-up. It was also the photo used in the interview the band gave to an Italian site http://www.arlequins.it/pagine/articoli/corpointerviste.asp?chi=170 M.V.E.i. 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - if you could, please add the source to the image description page. I'm afraid e-mail will have to be forwarded to OTRS to confirm the PD status of the image, since it's not currently verifiable. Could you possibly contact them again if you don't have the original e-mail? If the copyright status can't be verified, I fear the image will be deleted, since it can easily be replaced with a free image of the band. Videmus Omnia 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I added this information. Actually i planned to add this information today anyway. If you want you can contact them, because i dont know how i will send you the letter-file once i recive it. If you could do it and be a witness to the fact they said it it will be really nice. You can send the EMail in English they have an exelent English. Hope you agree. M.V.E.i. 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will try to contact them this weekend. Videmus Omnia 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-) M.V.E.i. 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You the man!

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		In recognition of his dedication and commitment to obtaining free-content photographs of living persons, I am pleased to confer this Photographer's Barnstar on Videmus Omnia. BrokenSphere 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see what some people have sent you, "eye-catching" would be a bit of an understatement, but I dare not say too much. O___O

In your essay on how to present yourself, i.e. by having a professional user page, how much personal information should you disclose? Personally I refuse to put out too much about myself on my user page (I've seen a couple of examples where this turned out horribly wrong for the users who did, leading them to leave the project). BrokenSphere 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the much-appreciated compliment! In regards to real identity, I put my real full name in my e-mails, but not on my user page. (Just my first name, so they know that I am the same person if they visit the page.) I think it gives more credibility to use a real name in a photo request as opposed to a user handle, especially when dealing with "respectable" institutions or notable people. If you're interested in trying something like this, let me know if I can offer any advice, I'm glad to help! Videmus Omnia 21:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre photos

I added a link to the Crime Library page from where I found the mugshots. Hopefully, this is the last of these kind of requests, as it's getting to be a real pain in the neck having to "clarify" and "justify" the copyright status of simple mugshots. Now, apparently, I have to do the same thing for the victims' photographs. It's not like mugshots or photographs of crime victims are commercial images. Enough! -- J.R. Hercules —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Random Smile

TotesBoats has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TotesBoats 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre images -- again

Law enforcement agencies don't copyright their mugshots. That's all you need to you know. In fact, I don't understand why you didn't know that already. There is already a mugshot template, as well as a long discussion on the topic. How is it that you didn't know this?

The Carr mugshots were taken at the Sedgwick County Courthouse; hence, the link to the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department. The only way you can find the images on the site is if you're a law enforcement officer and have password access to the criminal records on the site. Nevertheless, the images are still stored there. But the images are considered public domain, and have therefore been published freely in newspapers -- and on the web (Crime Library) -- since the year 2000.

I trust that this puts an absolute end to any further questions about the mugshots "copyright status", as the mugshots will remain in the article. -- J.R. Hercules 05:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has to take any action to copyright anything, it's automatic. The law on government-entity copyrights varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If they were federal government mugshots then they're likely PD. If they're state or local, they're probably not. Regardless, the copyright holder has to be demonstrated per WP:NFCC#10 and the information has to be verifiable. I'm sorry, but if you believe they're not copyrighted you have to demonstrate this. Videmus Omnia 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you demonstrate that the law on government-entity copyrights varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Also, can you demonstrate that state and local mugshots aren't public domain? -- J.R. Hercules 05:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and the references therein. Many states and local jurisdictions do in fact release that information to the public domain, but it must be verified. --Pekaje 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is that we don't know the copyright is owned by Sedgwick County - there's no verification of that. For an example of good research on a photo's copyright holder, see Image:Amyphoto.jpg. Videmus Omnia 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jasmine image

I was simply unaware that there were still fair use violations in revision history. It did not occur to me that the first admin who edited the page simply did not delete them. I'm sure if you took a second to look at the revision, you would've understood the situation clearly. 71.179.85.101 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, try not to assume everything is vandalism so quickly. I'm sure the twinkle scripts offers several other options. 71.179.85.101 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the term "vandalism" in the edit summary. Please, in the future, don't blank maintenance templates without verifying that the issue has been resolved. Videmus Omnia 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

RE: Bradley Joseph. On the contrary, thanks for having the patience with me. I don't think I could put up with the BS that you get, and you always keep a level head, but your work here is indeed valuable and you are to be commended. I do understand that FAs especially need to be held up to higher scrutiny so they can be seen as examples and my ultimate goal is do be compliant. I will work on reducing the sound files over the next few days because looking now, I believe I've screwed up and calcuated 10% of say a 3:50 song as being "35" seconds, figuring like one would figure 10% of money but that is not right. I need to multiply x 60 seconds and then divide by 10%. (duh) So thanks for the heads up. Commons would be fine bwt for the image. Thanks again. ♫ Cricket02 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm not sure I understand about the sampling rate? ♫ Cricket02 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough by all you've done, I am overwhelmed by your kindness. And the samples sound so much better and was completely above and beyond. I must admit to being technically challenged and it took me probably six months (off and on) to finally figure out just the basics of creating audio files (oggs, converting, Audacity, etc.) I will work on getting others compliant and if you can offer any tips, that would be welcome. Many blessings to you. Cheers! ♫ Cricket02 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

JPG/PNG

There are times when JPGs are a more efficient format than PNGs, usually due to photographic details in the image. PNGs offer the convenience and efficiency of optimized palletes, but often at the cost of noticeable dithering. For instance, an 8-bit version of Image:GunBarrelPhoto.jpg I rendered as a test showed either color banding or dithering and weighed in at 58kb as a .png vs only 22 as a higher quality jpg. The best images to tag for png conversion don't have many color gradients and have relatively simple geometric structures. Logos, for instance, are usually perfect candidates for the png/svg treatment. Photographic images are best handled by jpegs. Cheers, ˉˉ╦╩ 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on a conversation, but that is not true. When you're talking about noticeable dithering you are thinking of the GIF format which is limited to 256 colors. The PNG format is not bound by this limit. The PNG format is also able to handle gradients quite well, see the discussion of PNG compression filter methods at Portable Network Graphics#Compression. JPEG, Joint Picture Experts Group, is best for photographic data, as its name implies. —Remember the dot 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about 8-bit PNGs, you can have palettes with a greater bit depth. There's definitely a filesize/performance ratio, and sometimes JPGs win out. The point is that PNGs aren't usually the best choice for film/tv screenshots. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) That's strange, I can understand your confusion. I'm not sure exactly what the context of RTD's advice was, so I'll just elaborate a little more on the subject. There are two reasons to convert JPGs to PNGs: 1) improve the image quality; 2) reduce file size / server load. MediaWiki software has to perform less processing on PNGs to scale them since JPGs need to be un/re-recompressed to render thumbnails. Yet this concern is moot because thumbnailed images are cached for future use, so ultimately filesize is more important than just format. (And quality is more important than either.) As WP:IUP#Format implies, JPGs are more efficient for photorealistic images with greater color depths, but introduce artifacts when under heavy compression. So it works both ways, sometimes PNGs provide for better quality and smaller filesize, sometimes they don't. After a while you can tell by glancing at the image which way it's going to go, and advanced image editors have tools to preview and optimize filesize depending on the format. If you'd like to try playing around with image formats to get a sense of what I'm talking about, try IrfanView. While IV isn't a full-featured suite, it allows for fast, easy conversions and basic fixes. As for tagging images, I guess the best guideline would be to go by the amount of photographic detail. I'm sorry if all this just added to the confusion :-/ ˉˉ╦╩ 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You might know this already, but you can also use programs like optipng and pngout to losslessly recompress PNG files, thus reducing their file size. —Remember the dot 04:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Until this is resolved, I'll tag comic book/vidgame stuff as {{ShouldBePNG}}, and hold off on photorealistic images. Thanks, both of you, for the advice. Videmus Omnia 03:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, for photographic data (photos, scans, TV and film screenshots) use JPEG. For non-photographic data (comic books, software and video game screenshots) use PNG. For diagrams use SVG if possible, otherwise PNG. —Remember the dot 04:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think we were talking past I each other - I meant TV screenshots, you meant computer screenshots. Thanks again. Videmus Omnia 04:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists

No the page shouldn't have lots of images. But I really think it is approriate to have an image of the biggest film of that year. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eventually I hope they will be more than just lists and wil be full of encyclopedic information. One single image out of the several hundred of films to help gain an understanding of the most prominent film ought to be permitted ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from - at the very least the image needs to have a fair use rationale for use in that particular article. I'm sorry if this is a hassle - I honestly do have a an incredible appreciation for the film work you've done. I'm planning on trying to bring Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan up to GA-status and I plan on using your work as an example. Videmus Omnia 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I completely respect your views on images - I am also all for standardizing images with a rationale.- it does make the encyclopedia look more professional - after all we can't claim a 💕 if the whole thing is plastered in copywrighted images!!! However in regards to films, it is practically impossible to gain a free image of the film - and one of the keep forms of media to understanding a film is the picture and with the film pages we are mentioning several hundred films!!!!! If anything I would prefer to use just one singular screen capture of the biggest film of that year rather than a poster as just a small insight into them. I really feel they can contribute to the strength of the article - is it possible I could write in a detailed film rationale to explain why the film is of the uttermost importance to that year in cinema history?

Hey this is my progess so far:

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also some notes on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Note cast always comes after plot. Also the cast is too long - mostly we don't include all of the cast just the main actors. I'd cut off the cast at Kevin Rodney Sullivan. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A trekky fan huh? Yes for the cast section have a look at Goldfinger (film) as an example of layout -good luck with the development of it. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest using Casino Royale (2006 film) as an idea for layout. At the Bond and WP Films project we think this is a pretty good model - Jaws (film) also is good but strangely is missing a cast section yet it is an FA! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ernst! Videmus Omnia 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale for Image:Titanic poster.jpg. I don't want to make a habit out of adding extra rationales but for the number of 1 of each year I really think it is needed. PLease let me know if this meets your reviewing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance for 2007 I added a free image of Tobey Mguire at a premiere to identify the Spiderman film-but somebody removed it as they thought it wasn't good enough. I wish there was some way to obtain free images of films!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ernst. I'm not going to dispute the usage, but I'm not totally comfortable putting my name on the FUR template for that particular article. I'm going to leave the image be and take it off my watchlist. Thanks again! Videmus Omnia 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm using a different image for Titanic anyway now - a screenshot which is more informative and I have added a full rationale. I see you havebeen assessing them as the commons do good work. Yes that old photo of Kiel with that dodgy hawaiian shirt was not good!! Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey check out my edits on French cinema today!!!! I've begun building it up starting with the French films of the 1920s. Eventually all links will have full articles. There are some classics in French film ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Latin (2)

I'd be grateful if you could express any opinion regarding the message I posted above; hopefully you don't see it as a trolling; I am very serious on such imnportant issues.Doktor Who 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use rationale warnings

Thanks for the warnings that you left on my Talk page. I thought that these came from a bot. I shouldn't think that there would be too many more left to be issued to me, but I would prefer a list with one instance of boilerplate text than the above, if possible. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Masaharu Homma page

Hello, You have tagged the subject page as unbalanced. Wondering what you feel is unbalanced about it? Maybe you could add your thoughts to the discussion page. thanks. Zatoichi26 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I wanted to come by and leave you a message. Since a lot of time has passed, I think our initial misunderstanding and anger (on both sides) petered out, and I wanted to let you know that I harbor no ill will anymore. You are truly here to help make this encyclopedia better, which I really didn't think was your intention back when you left all those messages on my page. Since then I've been noticing your edits, and my anger changed to admiration. My own father was in the Navy (retired in 2002 after 27 years), and I can't help but feel an unspoken appreciation and kinship between us in regards to military service, even though I don't know you personally. In any case, I'm babbling; I wanted to let you know that I'm sorry we had that misunderstanding, and I don't think you're evil or whatnot. Whether that even mattered to you is all you, but I thought about it, and wanted to let you know how I felt now. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VigilancePrime

I'm sorry, but what VigilancePrime did was just fine. Copy-and-paste moves in article space are a bad thing, but I've never seen anyone suggest that pages have to be "moved" into userspace to preserve content. If he had done so, it would automatically have created a redirect into userspace, which is forbidden per WP:CSD#Redirects and would have caused a mess that an admin would have had to clean up.

it would automatically have created a redirect into userspace - Apparently you've never heard of speedy deletion tags: do you need a refresher? You've also apparently never heard of GFDL: do you need a referesher on that, too? --Calton | Talk 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians in the United States Armed Forces