| Revision as of 20:27, 15 March 2007 editGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Re: Protection of []: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:09, 19 June 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,669,854 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (7x), <center> (1x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (298 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=October 14, 2009}} | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | ||
| If further archiving is needed, see ]. | If further archiving is needed, see ]. | ||
| Line 4: | Line 7: | ||
| '''Previous discussions:''' | '''Previous discussions:''' | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == Happy holidays! == | |||
| ] | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| I hope all is well, Jkelly, and that you have a wonderful holiday season and a great rest of 2008! Cheers, ] 09:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Appreciate your help cleaning up the BLP vio at ]. Could you block {{user|PyatPree}} too, as he's been ] as a sock of an indef-blocked user? ] 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fair Use (Cont'd) == | |||
| Thanks for the pointers in your response. Currently, I have a written request (cc: permissions at WP dot org) of Artists Rights Society (http://www.arsny.com/) for consent. I am hoping to add ''Campbell's Soup Cans II'' to with consent. The Museum of Contemporary Arts, Chicago will send image if I get consent. The ARSNY will probably render an opinion on the 8 current image inclusions soon as well. I also may request an image from the Andy Warhol Museum depicting phase 3 if they have one once ARSNY gives me an understanding of their perspective on consent. ] 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. Do you have any general opinion of the qualification of the article for FA now? ] 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding That Help == | |||
| Firstly, thanks for your attention, and attempt to help orient me. I had gotten as far as reading the guildline pages you've directed me to, but as always, the difference between theory and practice is the devil's playground. | |||
| Perhaps my difficulty arises from the pre-existing defects in the Inconvenient Truth page to which you allude. After all, given that it is so self evidently try, why doesn't the article acknowledge that Gore's thesis is a hotly contested one? | |||
| In any event, perhaps we could work through what you would regard as the proper course of action for correcting the flaw that I have set about correcting. Specifically, the section I have edited is deliberately crafted to give the false impression that Gore's thesis--that man is a principle cause of observed global warming--is, if not demonstrated scientific fact, at least the only sensible presumption in view of the evidence. Clearly, that's the POV of a certain faction. My POV is that Gore's arguments sweep under the rug several serious holes in our present understanding of climatology (we needn't address motives; those are neither here nor there). Surely, the NPOV thesis is to acknowledge both positions, at least presuming that I can support my POV by specifically identifying one or more of those holes? | |||
| Or, to put it another way, I am offering a different thesis as the proper NPOV thesis. Either (1) I am self evidently correct, and the thesis statements in the article should be changed to acknowlege the contentious nature of Gore's thesis, or (2) it is incumbent upon me to support my position with citations to evidence. I chose the later path. | |||
| I am, therefore, stunned at the suggestion that it might be inappropriate for me to support my position with citations. So I infer that the real key to your statement about the "no new research" policy is the bit about how that reputable climatologist needs to be speaking specifically about Gore, rather than about the things that Gore said. To put it in abstract logical terms, I understand you to be saying that, if Gore states "P," it is a violation of the "no new research" policy for me to cite reputable climatologists saying "not P"--to conform to the policy, I have to cite reputable climatologists saying "when Gore said P he was wrong." | |||
| At this point, I rather hope you think I've misrepresented your statement. Believe me, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse. Frankly, I'm quite confident that I can back up my position on the science--I've studied the matter since my days as a physics undergrad in the late 80s--and I'm eager to do exactly that. My goal is to do so without arguing with or changing the policies of this forum. But I have trouble believing that this is really the policy. By all means, set me strait...{{unsigned|QBeam}} | |||
| ==Assistance== | |||
| Some person is modifying my userpage and has slapped a "personal attack" template on my talk page because he /she disagress with my position about IP editors. I do not feel that anything on my userpage constitutes a "personal attack" and feel that this template is inappropriate. Will you please intervene? - ] 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Disregard - Apparently I am not allowed to express an opinion on my userpage. - ] 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == East of Eden copyright infringements? == | |||
| There have been some disputes regarding the article, '']''. You have been somewhat involved in the discussion resulting from these disputes, so you may wish to ''']''' and make some comments. − ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Infoboxes versus article writing == | |||
| I noticed you made about ]. I have to agree, that is the worst example of 'infobox but no article' that I've seen (not to mention the succession box. Were you mentioning that in jest, or are you serious about trying to restrain excessive infoboxing of Misplaced Pages (the infamous Infopedia scenario)? I've long wanted to see something sensible written about the advantages and disadvantages of infoboxes, and how to prevent them bloating (like the one at ]). Any advice or links? ] 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == From Elinor again - ] and ] == | |||
| Regarding , you're welcome. You've been very helpful to me, so I was glad to be able to do somthing for you. For questions about images I'm thinking of uploading in the future, I'll go to the pages you suggest. In the meantime, there are two more (related) things I want to mention to you. | |||
| 1) I uploaded ]. Because of what you had said, I uploaded them here, and not at Commons, and I used the statue tag. However, in the article ], there was already ], tagged as public domain. My feeling is that if that's public domain, mine can be too, and if mine shouldn't be, neither should that. Would it be appropriate for me to do when I asked you about the tag for a Hummel figurine? | |||
| 2) I was also thinking of taking a photo of some ] glass animals. Again, I assumed that the statue tag would be the correct tag, and that I shouldn't upload them to Commons. However, the article mentions that Commons has material relating to Swarovski. When I followed ], I found a unicorn and two bears that I felt, based on what you had said and what you had suggested I read, should have been uploaded here instead, with the statue tag. | |||
| Okay, that's it. I promise not to ask you any more questions for a while! ] 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Potty mouths & IP vandalism== | |||
| Thanks for being so quick on the stick. In the context of the brouhaha about the contributions of IP editors, this is just dripping with irony. LOL - ] 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Back to Stomakhin article and my contraversial block == | |||
| '''The bottom line is:''' | |||
| *Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia. | |||
| *Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website). | |||
| *one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist. | |||
| *Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction. | |||
| *Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article. | |||
| *Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually. | |||
| *Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website. | |||
| *Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction. | |||
| *The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website. | |||
| *Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech. | |||
| '''And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations?''' | |||
| ] 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::<b>It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of ] journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22</b>] 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about ] good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against ] Stomakhin sentenced for ]]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.] 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==re: Inquiry== | |||
| See ] | |||
| Listed under "Links normally to be avoided" are "Links to ] (such as ]), ] or ]. | |||
| ] 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your message == | |||
| Thanks for your comments. You put your finger on one of my worries, in fact. These images are perfectly legal in Misplaced Pages (in fact they're being used for exactly what they're provided for), so what's the problem? Well, it's to do with what happens down the line, and part of that involves commercial uses. Now, I don't put in all this unpaid work for it to be sold, in any form or in any way, and I should think most editors feel the same way. --] (]) 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == user page == | |||
| Thanks for your words of explanation that Misplaced Pages is for the hobbist. Looking at it that way helps make all the goings-on tolerable. A person academically trained believes Misplaced Pages's initial presentation -- that it wants to be a true encyclopedia, reliably sourced etc. And that goal, of course, gets an editor quickly into trouble. Seeing the purpose as something else entirely, or making up a personal purpose, works better. I read your user page a while ago and have been thinking about it. So, thanks! Regards, ] 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did read it, more than once in fact. It is an interesting and well thoughtout perspective. I didn't mention it because I am so unsure of the direction Misplaced Pages is going ultimately, although as I write this I feel more optimistic. Thanks to you also for being a calming presence in all this muddle. Sincerely, ] 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just read some nice point you made elsewhere very tactfully. The way you are is a beneficial presence, although I have not always agreed with you. I am beginning to see the good in proceeding as you do. Sincerely, ] 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Expertise == | |||
| Cribbing from Mattisse's last note to you, I too have thought some about your mini-essay on expertise on WP. Nothing in it surprised me (well, maybe the French vs. German lit cards) but it is good to see it articulated. Particularly since WP is aimed at a '''general''' level of understanding and comprehension, not an expert level. I certainly know a number of experts in their fields who cannot, even to save their life, write to a general level. They have no ability to simplify and translate jargon into readily understandable language. I blame the academic system which encourages complexity of expression and often writing to your peers the higher you ascend. Simplicity is '''so''' pre-postmodern... | |||
| Dueling experts is often a particularly fruitless exercise on talk pages. Sometimes I look at such discussion as a non-expert and think "The fact in question doesn't even belong in the article, it's probably too esoteric for a general article." Um, not that I'm advocating dumbing articles down too far. You probably understand what I'm getting at. It's one reason I enjoy working on articles I have only a cursory knowledge about: It's easier to sift through and shake out the more essential elements. Ta. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not perceive your piece as frustrated. Unlike some people, I don't think criticism is ipso facto a bad thing. Perhaps it's my journalistic background which also made me read it more as observation than being critical just to be critical. I particularly hear your comment about the challenge (and satisfaction for me) of properly and accurately representing a subject in understandable terms. On some subjects, this is an extremely difficult task. But in the end, to do it, you as a writer also need to understand the subject well enough to express it in simpler terms. That, for me, is often the hardest part. Sometimes the original writing in articles is so convoluted and/or badly written, I have trouble extracting the information to rephrase. I find that frustrating because my own lack of knowledge in some particular area means I just have to pass over the article or risk misstating the info. But, more and more, I'm finding people on Misplaced Pages to call on to help in such situations. And that's great. Despite, ''ahem'', some recent events which shall go nameless, I find Misplaced Pages a community worth belonging to and participating in. (I sound like a politician there.) Here's hoping I learn to moderate my participation and don't burn out. Currently I seem to be on a ] run with AutoWikiBrowser, fixing spelling mostly. It's very untaxing, almost relaxing in its simplicity. I think I need this after the events-that-dare-not-speak-its-name. (hmm, the subject/object or singular/plural don't match in that phrase. oh, well.) I suspect I'm doing such minor but necessary tasks because it is unlikely to put me in contention with anyone over content disputes. This feels like a Wiki-break at the moment. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wide Consensus== | |||
| Please define the wideness of the consensus you speak of. Consensus seems to be wider for some people on Misplaced Pages than others, which is a shame considering that Misplaced Pages is generally seen as having a egalitarian reputation (I didn't see a little asterisk with a link to statements like yours next to "The 💕 Anybody Can Edit" statement on the front page.) | |||
| I don't agree with your edit, but I don't ], and from your tone, I assume you do not wish to try and find a middle ground. Have a pleasant evening.] 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Wilde == | |||
| Heh, I actually contributed that quote to Wilde on Uncyclopedia on the (long deleted in the great purge of 2005) 100 dollar bill article. I just had to use it again. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Infoboxes again == | |||
| There is some discussion going on (or about to start) at ]. Would you be able to contribute and explain how the Google parsing and removing parameters but not tidying up articles things work? ] 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Opinion requested == | |||
| Would you be willing to offer your opinion on the fair use status of these images: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_4#Image:.27.27Conflict_Onan.27.27_by_Anton_Brink.jpg | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_4#Image:Onan.jpeg | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| ] 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your comments. I appreciated the outside perspective. ] 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deleted images== | |||
| Why were images under the template Template:CAnkawa deleted? Why did you not confront me first before taking actions? ] 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :They were NOT media license pictures. I dont understand your arguement. These pictures are from the Assyrian community in Iraq. They posts these pictures in a forum where all Assyrians get together. Did you even read ]? ] 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes their is a miscommunication, because I am not understanding you. | |||
| ::1. Ankawa.com has allowed any of its images to be used on wikipedia.org, as stated in the agreement | |||
| ::2. Ankawa.com just does not wanted ME (personally) making money off of the pictures. | |||
| ::What is the problem now? ] 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok let me be more clear. He wrote the message in a way confronting me, instead confronting the website. The owner of the site is ] and ] speaker, with very little knowledge of English, hense the message being written in Assyrian and me translating it. Here is the agreement; ''Shlama eloukh. Ankawa.com shoka ayet daretle emet sourathe kebet min website aidian gawed website ad wikipeida.org. Ankawa.com bas kepa logo adeana hoya gawad kolla sourathe aid holoukh be drae gawad ad website. Khna shokukh ana souretha eboukh odat estim3al mad kebet o thetle, bas la othet pare gawa.'' It states the ok to use the pictures throughout the whole message and in the end it states ''shokukh ana souretha eboukh odat estim3al mad kebet o thetle, bas la othet pare gawa.'' - you can use this pictures for any reason with ankawa.com being cited if you are using it for profit making. In other words, I he directed toe message to me saying I can't make money off of the pictures unless ankawa.com is cited. ] 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I apologize for the confusion as my english is not the best. I am not an expert on the copyright templates in terms of which one to use, but I thought I did it right. I will email the original email of permission to that address you gave me. ] 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Have you taken care of it yet? ] 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you want it the email me give you here or do you want me to email it back to the email address you gave me? Also how long until the pictures come back up? Thank you. ] 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok no problem ] 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Any word when the pictures will be back up? ] 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No problem. I will them about the statue pictures, I'm not sure. The patriach picture was given to ankawa.com from one of the ] of ]. I can get more info on it. ] 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::By the way, their are more pictures; ] ] ] and ] ] 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi their JKelly. I have convinved an online magazine (www.zindamagazine.com) to release its pictures as well. So I was wondering if we could do something like what we did with the ankawa.com situation. I have the permission email send already, what do you want me to do now? ] 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually this time its in English, so that good. I will forward the email now. ] 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No I didnt get no response. Do you want me to send it again? ] 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing yet? I just forwarded the email again. ] 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No problem, glad I can contribute anyway I can. ] 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| "Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Misplaced Pages." Please see ] to offer your thoughts on this proposal. ] 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bubonics== | |||
| Hello Sir! If I were not a very active participant in ], I think I might close it, what with the recent decision by the most vociferous would-be deleter that he doesn't want it deleted after all (a decision that doesn't stop him asking expletive-deleted questions). But of course I mustn't push you, or anybody else.... -- ] 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Location Maps == | |||
| On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to ].<br/>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 ], ] till ], ], 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.<br/>As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before ], ] a survey started that will be closed at ], ] 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.<br/>Please note that since ], ] all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of ], ] 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.<br/>Please read the ] (also in other sections ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]) 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 ''']. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.<br/>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. — ] <span style="font-size:.87em;">]] 20:18 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Wow, you are ''!'' | |||
| == Image:Macarthurj.jpg == | |||
| On January 11, 2007, I emailed the permission to use the Image:Macarthurj.jpg to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per ] On January 26, 2007, the image was deleted. See . I just emailed the permission to use the Image:Macarthurj.jpg again to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Would you look into this and let me know what else I can do to have the image tagged with {<nowiki>{</nowiki>]|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }}? Thanks. -- ] 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Permissions email (copied from ])=== | |||
| First of all, I want to apologise for the delay you experienced. We're quite backlogged. I'm not sure that's the reason nothing happened, however. I've looked over the email you forwarded to us quite carefully, and I am unable to find the actual release statement in it. Did your email client perhaps trim it out of the email due to the length? Am I missing it somewhere in the midst of the text? Would it be helpful for me to send you back what you sent us? ] 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No need to apologize, but I appreciate it. At the top of the email, the email client wrote "Below is a summary of your request and our response." In their response at the bottom of the email, the requested Permissions were granted. (Category Level 1: Rights and Permissions; Category Level 2: Permissions) -- ] 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw that, but that's not really a binding licensing statement... it looks more like their email-sorting queue to me. You never got a further response from them? I'm afraid that we really need something more authoritative than that, since we wouldn't know who to attribute the copyright to, a requirement of the GFDL. ] 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem, I'll contact them again. -- ] 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I received a reply from the email client. They have a huge copyright policy, which is not GFDL. Since I will not be able to get a GFDL license for the image, please close my licensing requests. Thanks. -- ] 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Archiving == | |||
| 're welcome. It was the first time I got a (-248,736) in my watchlist. :) ] ] 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==FU on FACs== | |||
| Some help ] would be nice. --] 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :On a related not, how many sounds samples do you think constitutes too many? Are sounds used by mirrors? --] 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, that seems pretty logical. --] 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Help needed at ] ] (]) 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi J, the editors of the ] article have started emailing fanzines, newspapers, magazines and flicker photographers to try and track down free images to use in the article. In the meantime, is there an acceptable number of fair use files that can be used? I appreciate that there is no ''magic number'', but if the context of the image is weaved into the text of the article, would be possible to retain just a few? Thanks for you time and input on this. + ] 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, could you take a look at ] too, please.--] 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And this --] 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry == | |||
| I assumed it was. What made me think so? Because Misplaced Pages banned by-permission stuff a long time ago. <s>Was it uploaded under {{tl|Permission}} or something?</s> I guess the discussion about {{tl|logo}} should have tipped me off. ] 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: == | |||
| Regarding your old comment here, so is this an exception? thanks :-) ] 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok what about this im sure this will work, thanks. ] 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes! :-) ill upload it to commons now. ] 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey the bot did not approve i assume its the wrong license? ] 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I had a license and the source, didn't think i needed anything else. ] 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Thanks for the kind words! Picture backlog hell only allows me limited wikidebate time, fair use here and ToL on commons are the two... :-) ] 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] ]== | |||
| Hi! I've been reffered to you by {{user|SandyGeorgia}}. The article ] is in FAC. Sandy told me to request you to check if the images in Delhi are ok to use. Could you please have a look? Regards.--] (]) 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == One Tree Hill == | |||
| Hey there. Please could you check out the pictures being used on ] and tell me whether or not they're fair use? Thanks, ''']''' <sup>''']'''</span></sup> 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == TV station logos == | |||
| I just found out that the images I had uploaded of historical logos from WEAU-TV were orphaned. When I uploaded them last fall, I had been under the impression that these logos were permissable under fair use. My intention is to create a historical gallery of logos for the WEAU page, adding to the historical information on the rest of the page. You mentioned that I can give a claim of fair use, but, being fairly new to the whole world of Misplaced Pages, I want to make sure I know exactly what I need to do to show justification for having these logos on the website. I'm also curious why historical logos for other stations (ie. WCCO, WQOW) have not been orphaned, and if there's something different about those images that allows them to be used on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Basically, just respond with what I need to do to show why these logos should be on Misplaced Pages, and, if I'm unable to justify them in their current format, what would be an acceptable source from which to upload these logos. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == Cs.source == | |||
| Hi. Thx for your editing on ] by Byron today, but we had to revert your edit. The problem is, that the text has been translated by a known Czech poet Vrchlický who uses ''žití'' (= life) not ''Zoe''. But anyway, if we can get some information on this, eg. what the sentence ''Zoë mou sas agapo'' (the English poem) means, who Zoe is, what Byron wanted to say..., so we can write about this in a notice. Thx, ] 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK. Thx for message. So, can we understand it in that way, that there is something like a play of words, or a play of different meanings of a word? It is interesting, as the translator, the poet ] (see also ] here), is supposed first to have known english very good (he translated a whole ] of different english/irish/scottish poets), and secondly, as a poet by himselves, he also is supposed to make inverstigations about such things. ] 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rollback requested== | |||
| Will you please rollback my userpage? ] redirected it to his userpage and then blanked it. - ] 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. - ] 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, Jkelly, I was just eavesdropping at your page here, and took a look at what had been happening. The move was done by ], but he moved the talk page to ]. Note the upper case M. When you had finished cleaning up the mess, you left a welcome message at ], but in fact, there is no such user. That account was never registered. If you look at the links on the left of the user page or talk page, you'll find there is no link for contributions. If it were just an account that hadn't been used, as opposed to one that hadn't been created, there would be a link for the contributions, but the contributions page would be empty. Sorry to see you getting ], by the way. ]] 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Garion96's RFA== | |||
| Thank you for your support in my ] which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other ] since we ] more admins. Happy editing, ] ] 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I thought I wouldn't do a boilerplate. However I would like to encourage many people to vote, so...:) ] ] 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| First admin question, just to be sure. What to do with this image ]. On the one hand it has not got a source, but you could assume it's PD. And this one ]. It's a logo of ], so can you assume it came from their website and tag it accordingly? I couldn't really find a clear answer in ]. ] ] 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for your answers. Regarding the issue above your post on my talk. Yes, if it's serious I wil definitely refer her to the foundation. ] ] 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Copyvio== | |||
| But I changed the text in my own words I can not just change the events so they don't overlap with the cited text.] | |||
| ==PETA images== | |||
| Sure, no problem. :) Just give me a couple of days and I'll send something to you. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cyberanth == | |||
| Difs in report are now corrected. ] 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks - replied on my talk == | |||
| ] 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == regarding the ] edit == | |||
| Excuse me, I have pointed out: | |||
| a. this is not original research it is from a reporter for the Downtown Brooklyn Star. | |||
| http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/home.asp?PID=4 | |||
| b. It is referencing official government sites. Therefore is not original research. '''It meets the criteria for unimpeachable research.''' | |||
| I think at this point you need to prove to me why it should be deleted.{{unsigned|Mywikieditor2007}} | |||
| ==Peter Balakian Image== | |||
| In what way is the use of bad fair use? I believe it adequately illustrates the person in question with a low resolution screenshot. -- ] 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page == | |||
| Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. It's the first time my page has been defaced. I'm so proud. ;) ] 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Clean-up tag on Olympia, Greece== | |||
| Hi there. I removed the gallery clean-up tag on ] because I don't think it is warranted. The page has two large info boxes and is currently quite short, so to distribute the relevant images through the text isn't practical. I think the inclusion of images is useful considering the nature of the article and a gallery is a good way to display them at the moment. Best wishes. ] 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Not my battle.. == | |||
| Just curious. On the Twiggy thing: | |||
| ''FUC #10 - Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).'' | |||
| But if it '''isn't''' different -- that is, if the source (Twiggy's official website) and the copyright holder (Twiggy) are the same -- then how does this image fail #10? I read this to mean that the copyright holder attribution is needed ONLY if it different than the source. | |||
| A similar problem cropped up recently with a photo the original uploader claimed was a Virgin Records promotional photo of Boy George. To me... having seen thousands of these style photos in the past... I had no reason to believe it was NOT what the original uploader said. The "source," such as it was, was Virgin Records, and since the photo was in all likelyhood work for hire, they would be the copyright holder as well. But certain, uh, elements disagreed... | |||
| Seriously, not picking a fight. Just curious... | |||
| ] ] 10:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''I'm considering buying a print to scan anyway. Think it is worth it sight unseen? I'm not sure I want to make a habit of doing this; it could get expensive.'' -- What??? Never in a million years should you do this. If the Foundation wants to begin buying prints of PD images to scan in, that's one thing, but my feeling is that in no way, shape, or form should individual editors be purchasing material specificially to scan and upload to Misplaced Pages. Especially not when there are FREE and LEGAL means of using the same photos. And besides -- what if someone, in the future, changes the image rules again, and then your photo is wiped out? Seem unlikely? So does the odds of us having ANY trouble fairly using any number of promotional or govermental photos that have already been removed in pursuit of the ultimate libre standard. ] ] 23:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help with Fair Use issue == | |||
| I just downloaded a map image for use in ]. It is from the Indian state government website in which the district lies. I could not find info on copyright, but it is a promotional/press release site. What do you think? It will be deleted soon if I don't put the right tag on it. (On Wiki Commons there are no maps for any of the districts in this state.) Sincerely, ] 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == But what do you draw the map with? == | |||
| Does Misplaced Pages have a tool or something? I still have WindowsMe on an old machine and I tried downloading some drawing programs but they were incompatible with my OS. Oh well. Thanks for answering. (I wish my computer weren't so healthy and would jus die!) Sincerely, ] 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. So I should just put a delete request on the image now and save everyone the bother? | |||
| :Thanks for the info. I have ownload Gimp. I perceive a steep lealing curve, but opeen source is my philosohy. Thanks you for your kind and thoughtful help. It is much appreciated. Sincerely, ] 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Thanks. ] 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your advise sought == | |||
| Problems with ] continue on ] ("Block evasion, continuing copyvio"). ] <small>]</small> 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == MOOOCHO> == | |||
| hey. you're supposed to be in bed sleeping. you have a big exam tomorrow. don't forget! AMEN!!!!! please leave me a message, i would love to get to know you better. thanks so much. no arguing allowed after lights out. ] | |||
| === your exam === | |||
| hi. How was your exam? How did you do? OH, by the way, I did not confuse you with someone else. And right now, you should be doing your Math homework, or Mrs. Smith will get very mad at you and you will get detention. Please leave me a message. I want to know how your exam went ] 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank You! == | |||
| Much gratitude for restoring my page. ] 05:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stoskus-sf.jpg== | |||
| "Jkelly" . . . that's a familiar name. Thanks for the sanity check over that image. Erm, ] a conceivably related "train wreck" that may enthrall you (and don't miss the most recent of the archive pages). Not that it can quite rival , which is truly offal. -- ] 08:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Attention Required== | |||
| Please comment on ]. ] 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Categorization == | |||
| Hi, ] is adding a whole bunch of cats to articles, where the article is already in a cat that is a subcat of the cats that he's adding. I've indicated this to him, but he's ignored me. My understanding that it is not good practice to include but sub- and super-cats in articles as it defeats the whole purpose of categorization. Regards -- ] 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Google images == | |||
| Hi, I know I promised not to bother you again for a while, but I have just reverted an edit that replaced a photo of George W. Bush with one that seemed to be a joke, and then I looked at ], and I see that he found the image, and at least one other image from Google. I presume that's not allowed. If you're busy, I'm sure someone else will find this in due course. It's even possible that other admins watch your page. Thanks. ] ] 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at his contributions now, I see that the Google image he has disappeared, so I presume someone has deleted it. ] ] 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help us out on ]? == | |||
| You suggested the wikibox alternative on the Christianity talk page and were a neutral party in the dispute. As such, some people have requested you make the edit to avoid any problems. Please ] on the talk page to let us know if you would kind enough to do this for us and to discuss what changes will be made. Thank you!! ] 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. It is sincerely appreciated. ] 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RV Problem == | |||
| Thanks for fixing my little revert problem on the article ]. My javascript is screwy today... :D ] 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. You should look into whether of yours was a script error or just a mistake on your part. ] 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Definitely a script error. Time to reboot. Thanks, again!! ] 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It's the same person. There's a picture on as well as the same details. | |||
| :"He currently is a medical supervisor at an alcohol/drug facility in Seattle, an American Red Cross First Aid/CPR instructor, an EMT trainer, and holds Board memberships for the King County Mental Health Board, Washington State League of Conservation Voters and Republicans for Environmental Protection." | |||
| This isn't a wild guess, I happen to ''know'' that it is the same person, and all the information is verfiable to multiple sources. ] 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it ''is'' the same person. A person who posted his own political bio on WP and doesn't want his occult activities known. But the same person. ] 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, he's probably not notable as either a politician or an occultist. But he is notable as a Republican occultist politician. He's know in the OTO as "the" Republican Thelemite, an unusual combination. ] 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What harm would a less restrictive licence do to Misplaced Pages? == | |||
| Hi, I've just noticed that you've moved ] to Commons, and it reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask you for some time. I saw on your user page that you agree to licence all your contributions under GFDL, "to avoid further complicating the legal situation of Misplaced Pages by introducing other licenses, either more or less restrictive". When I tagged the popcorn maker, I really didn't know why I should choose one over another, so it was really a toss of a coin that I chose PD rather than GFDL. Why would having something "less restrictive" than GFDL complicate the legal situation? Sorry if I'm being dense. ] ] 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the explanation. ] ] 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == See also section guideline == | |||
| Thank you for your polite pointer back on feb. 12th. You stated that, "in theory, 'See also' sections aren't supposed to contain links already linked in the actual text." I checked the ], ], ] et al. I could not find a reference to that policy. I recall reading advice somewhere to avoid repeating ''every'' link in the "see also" or "external links" sections. | |||
| I try to not over do the "see also" links, but i find it usefull to have a small set of the most relevant related articles in one place, even if they are also linked somewhere up in the text. This is particularly helpfull with long articles where one might skim to find a particular bit of information. This is what i try do provide when i add such links. Let me know if i have missed something, or if you find my linking to be over the top. - ] 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Just a reminder == | |||
| To what are you referring? ] 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, ok, thanks. ] 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Joey Ramone Place== | |||
| Would you believe I already have Joey Ramone Place? It's on the ] page - or you can find it here. If you need something different, then I can re-take it, I live right down the street from it. ] - I haven't downloaded it to the Commons yet; if you do it first, let me know. --] 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Works for me. If you give me the location, I can do it - or you can do it. I just got some really good photos today of ] and ]. I often have to stand with the papparazzi, and they are *really* irritating to listen to - pushy, rude, loud, etc. --] 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed - I went ahead and replaced it on the ] page. I like the one with the trees behind it, but I remember I wanted the cross street and that shot wasn't available with trees. In the Spring I'll double-check. --] 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bearded Woman== | |||
| Kelly - will you please delete this low-KB photo on the Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:JenniferMillerBeardedWoman.jpg | |||
| I don't know who downloaded it at such a crappy size, but the high resolution is found here (I've already removed the low-KB from all projects): | |||
| http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Jennifer_Miller_Bearded_Woman_by_David_Shankbone.jpg | |||
| I don't know how to delete things off the Commons myself, or even if I have the ability. Thank you. | |||
| --] 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Barbara Ehrenreich=== | |||
| Could you also get rid of this low-res thing, not in use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Barbara_Ehrenreich.jpg | |||
| Thank you. --] 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification of discussion in "Protocols..." article == | |||
| I just asked that if you have an issue with my comments that you address them to my Talk Page and you simply ignored my request and reverted the page. | |||
| The reality is that my comments are well within the guidelines for discussion. I urge you to review the guidelines yourself at (]). | |||
| My info is NOT Original Research. It is merely observational information that is based on fact. This is a basis upon which to improve the article. Also, the article has mistakes, like the mislabelling of some of the chapters. And, there are some chapters that are not discussed at all. In short, the article can be improved and my comments are a statement of fact upon which I would like to gather opinions for performing this improvement. | |||
| Next time you want to delete some comments made by someone who obviously spent considerable time writing, it's just common courtesy to post your thoughts on his Talk Page and give him an opportunity to respond. I'm only asking for a little common courtesy. I would appreciate it. Thanks. ] 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==I need an admin!== | |||
| Hey there, can you move a page for me? I recently found that ] redirected to ]. Seeing that there was also a ] article, I changed the redirect page to a disambig page. Apparently this has brought about some strong resistance from another editor - which is fine - but to resolve the situation, "Mims (rapper)" should be moved to "Mims". Why a "(rapper)" page was created in the first place is a mystery to me, but since the rapper and the city articles already link to each other I suppose a disambig page isn't needed. Not 100% certain on that policy, but if you agree that one is not needed, can you please move the page? At the very least we won't have a redirect for no reason. Please and thanks in advance! - ] 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As always, thank you very much! Mims the word! - ] 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Just a little self-tooting my horn== | |||
| I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Misplaced Pages." "Oh, Misplaced Pages...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, go ahead.") and photograph ] and her husband ] - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --] 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was actually going to ask you if you knew about anything, but I thought the notions seemed too fanciful to bother about. Thanks for the tip! I'm totally going to inquire right now - I'll share what I find out. --] 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Dear JKELLY, You may have misunderstood me. My point wasn't about the image of "Ianking". There I wanted to say that If I TAKE AN IMAGE OF THE ADVETISEMENT THEN HOW CAN I make the link? Link means I'm the owner or Something else. (Since I'm the creator) but some person says that poses copyright problem? I hope will answer there.--] 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deleted image== | |||
| Hello, why was the image removed from ] ? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> ] <font color = "blue"><sup>'']''</sup></font> 06:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced | |||
| ==An ice cream to say thank you== | |||
| ] to Jkelly for his kindness and patience in answering questions and helping me with image copyright issues, while I was getting established here and at Commons. ] 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)]]Hello, Jkelly. This time, I'm not here to take up any more of your time with questions. I feel like an established user now, and if I don't know something, I can generally figure out where to find the answer. I came here to offer you a strawberry ]. I made some in ] a few days ago when we had a visitor, and I thought I'd give one each to the three ] ] ] I had met here on Misplaced Pages. So, thanks for all your kindness, and if ever I can help you in any way, please let me know. ] ] 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And thank you for . While I don't intend to give my full name on Misplaced Pages, I can assure you it's ''not'' Gary Oldman, so I think it will be a bit difficult to find a source for that edit! ] ] 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Advice on photos== | |||
| Hey Kelly. Could you give me some guidance: I took some good photos of film directors ] and ] and put them on their articles. I also put the photographs on the article pages for their movies, reasoning it is their work/art and appropriate to include their photos. It would be like including an image of Leonardo da Vinci on the Mona Lisa article. A few users have removed the photos reasoning the director's image is irrelevant to their movie articles. I disagree, but I also see their point. Any guidance? Does it make a difference if there is no image on the page? This has only been an issue with films. Putting photos of authors on articles about their books (such as ] on the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants articles, or ] on his book articles haven't produced any reverts. Dave --] 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I reverted the removals once, but won't do so again. Like I said, I understand their point, but I still think the pages are better with the photos. One more thing: I put my name on the image files. I'm doing an experiment with my photos to see how they get used and therefore it's important my photo credit be used (so I can google to find them). First, I want to see how Misplaced Pages can be used as a place to go for open-use media to the wider web. Second, I like to see how the photos are used, and by whom. Third, some personal satisfaction. So it's important to make sure my credit is used/given. This is why the name is typically found on the file name. On the ] articles an editor replaced my "Ann Brashares by David Shankbone" pictures with the same image with my name removed from the file name. Apparently there are duplicate images on the Commons. Do you see any problem with this? There are no self-promotional motivations behind it, and my name never appears in the article nor do Misplaced Pages pages show up under "David Shankbone" Google searches (except on talk pages). --] 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==re:Fall Out Boy== | |||
| Whew, ok, good, because I have no friggin clue who the hell any of those guys are. - ] 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AN/I== | |||
| Thanks for the heads-up :-) <font face="Georgia">] ]<font color="navy">♦</font>]</font> 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kangaroo Paw== | |||
| Seems to be ''Anigozanthus flavidus'', see my talk page for discussion--] 07:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages Basis policy?== | |||
| It seem that Misplaced Pages should have some kind of policy requiring a person who cites a policy to give a basis, justification, or application of that policy to the material in question. But I can't find it anywhere. So I see people delete material saying only NPOV, POV, or original research (to name a few). The author should be able to undo citing NB (No Basis given for policy). | |||
| I mean really, if you add a quote and then cite it from a very popular, well-respected source, and then an active censorer of the article instantly removes it saying only POV with no specifics or basis, even in the talk pages, then what would you do? For example, they say, See Talk, and in Talk page they say only, NPOV. You ask for their reasons for saying that and they say I think its POV. Every inquiry yielding only a general POV citation. Then what? --] 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello back!== | |||
| Thanks for saying hi - I'm still around, just very busy lately, so my wikiing has been super-light. I still monitor things and dablle, but I just don't have time to do much more than that anymore. But anyway, thanks, and happy wikiing! ] 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Image:Sinomanicgx1.jpg == | |||
| You do understand that that unit is a prototype, and this image was released by them for promotional use right? Which is why it has a '''Promotional''' tag. So how exactly do you expect me to get a "free" version of a promotional image for a yet unreleased subnotebook? It's not like I substitute a generic image, it's kinda unique. --] 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hmm ... == | |||
| So how would you describe Wiki-world's attitude toward copyrighted material, then? The words that leap to my mind are "hostile," "unwelcome," and "mandated by policy to be replaced, even with lower quality material"... I would hate for someone to read WP:FU and think that the libre aspect of ] is in any way being devalued. ] ] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Jenolen, you making a confusion on the meaning of the term "Copyrighted". "''Libre''" doesn't imply not-copyrighted. | |||
| :The opposite of Copyrighted isn't Libre. It is "Public Domain", that is only one kind of Libre. Libre means something anyone can use for any purpose, including distribute, make derivative works, and distribute derivative works. Libre material can only contain very few restrictions on use like (1) requiring attribution or (2) require that derivative works remain Libre. A restriction on who can use the material, for instance, is not acceptable (like "to be used only for educational entities") | |||
| :What's "''unwelcome''" and "''mandated by policy to be replaced, even with lower quality material''" in Misplaced Pages is non-libre material, like copyrighted "''All Right Reserved''" material (the rights to copy, execute, distributed, etc. can't stay reserved to the author. It must be given to anyone. Some of the rights, like "attribution", may still be reserved). | |||
| :Do you realize that all the text from all Misplaced Pages's articles are copyrighted? | |||
| :(Sorry for making a forum out of your talk page, JKelly) | |||
| :Best regards, --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| No need to apologise. Believe me, much less relevant stuff often winds up on that page, and I don't mind in the least; it being, well, a wiki and all. I had , to say much the same thing. As it turns out, we seem to have to illustrate the point. ] 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Du'h! As I stalked through your talk pages, I didn't paid attention to the timestamps, and I though that came first, and that the above comment from him was an still unanswered question. Well... no harm done, I hope. Just a little mess. --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Norouz == | |||
| I was wondering if I could get your opinion on a discussion happening at ]. In the past a consensus was formed that all transliterations of the word "Norouz" should redirect to ], but allow there for a page on ] in summary style so that the information doesn't overflow the main page and also allow for information that is unique to the Kurds to remain in Misplaced Pages. Now a group of editors, who I believe are Iranian, want to merge the articles, in essence removing the extra material that is in ], because they don't believe that the Kurds celebrate it any differently that general Iranians. Regards, -- ] | |||
| ==Edits== | |||
| And did you give the same warning to ]? If not then what i have heard about this site is true. Because what do you call it when an Admin REMOVES (and not adds to) my and others material that is heavily validated and verifiable by ALL. Only to add his own "poorly sourced" material that is NOT accessible. Plus if he is truly a good Admin he would have carried the discussion to the talk boards before just removing others hard work. And if you are a good Admin he would have the same warning on his page (which I DO NOT see) Thanks. ] 20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : If you check, i did not do 3 reverts in one day either, What he did was a MAJOR edit REMOVING hard work actually of other people NOT even me. That WAS sourced, then he did a revert. Instead of leaving the material in a neutral situation until dispute is resolved. An Admin should be held to higeher standards, And for him to just blatantly do what he did, without the SAME warning I received just proves what others say, Along with colleges that now ban the use of WIKI as referenced material] 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Along with the fact that all my edit did was basically carry it back to a neutral state until things could be resolved, so the revert just shows favorism ] 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If what you just posted is so, then ] should be held to the same standards, if not higher. Plus I agreed to a dispute resolution with Dalbury but his EDITS should be held the same as other users. Which is clearly not the case here.] 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :if you revert back to before ALL his edits you can see that paragraph i added back is sourced in the REFERENCES even though it was not my paragraph. I added the sources for it in the references. Plus Dalbury keeps saying in his autobiography it says he was born in michigan. IT does NOT say where he was born in it. it says he lived there as a child. Not to mention i had provided several links that keep getting deleted to, Encyclopedia Britanica, MSN Encarta, and The Georgia Encyclopedia, That clearly state his place of birth as Waycross. As well as the fact that in EVERY interview he has ever given when asked of his birth he clearly states it as Waycross.] 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Hello! I'm one the others in the past who have told this RogueGremlin, formerly AriGold, that he is wrong about Burt Reynolds' birthplace, to no avail. I have put sources up on the discussion page, but I guess I'm not very good at sourcing or computers. I don't have a scanner thing. But there is much ] evidence here in Lansing, Michigan where I live to back up the many FACTS presented in his autobiography. Which he put his name on, which means he approved of it. This RogueGremlin believes he owns this page, in my opinion. ] 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Young Buck== | |||
| Hey again. Since I was such a huge help with your Fallout Boy question, I need another favor? Looks like ] (the new Young Buck album) is a protected redirect. Because of this, someone has created ]. Can you get this un-protected and the article moved to the correct location? - ] 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As always, Thanks!!! - ] 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Trouble at Pope Benedict == | |||
| Hi, I have a problem with an image that someone keeps adding to ]. The image is ], and the editor who uploaded it and added it five times today is the newly-registered {{User|Paparaz}}. I also believe that ], who added it twice more, is the same person. The image is obviously intended to disparage Pope Benedict, is likely to offend many Catholics, and has a claim of fair use, although it's of a living person and has no source. I tagged the image for speedy deletion, but nothing happened. I don't want to be accused of edit warring, although I think that adding it to that article is borderline vandalism, and at the very least trolling. Could you please have a look into the situation? Many thanks. ] ] 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for acting so promptly. ] ] 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Implicit promotional images (...or not really)) == | |||
| Hi, Jkelly. Just read about ], where an image was taken to be promotional but end up to be simply part of some website. The only thing uncommon about this case was that a complaint really was sent to the Foundation, as this kind of misuse of images found on internet is (I would say) the most common invalid fair use claim on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Shouldn't the source information for images tagged as "promotional" always contain verifiable information on when/where was the image released as promotional? | |||
| For instance, some weeks ago I tagged a "promotional" image of a tv serie's character as unsourced, because the only source information it contained was something like "''Copyright by XXX''". The uploader then updated the source information, explaining the image was download from the serie's official website. Then, I pointed out that, according to the official site's "terms of use", the image wasn't promotional at all. The uploader agreeded, and (as he was an admin) deleted the image. | |||
| Right after this episode, I ran through some other articles related to the same tv-serie (there are lots of them!), looking for similar images. I did found some of them with no more source info than "''Copyright by XXX''", but couldn't fix these images problems, as one editor said {{tl|no source}} wasn't appropriated (because "some" source was given) and other editor said removing the {{tl|promotional}} tag (and tagging as {{tl|no license}}) wouldn't be appropriate (as he deemed them to be acceptable). | |||
| What would be the proper thing to do in these cases? Is "''Copyright by XXX''" enough source information for an image claimed to come from a press kit? If not, what would be acceptable? And if acceptable information can't be provided, should the image be tagged as {{tl|no source}}, {{tl|no license}}, {{tl|ifd}}...? | |||
| (I left the details of the above mentioned case blurred on purpose, but if you believe it would help, I could be more specific). | |||
| Best regards, --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're sort-of ; this category is a mess (if I recall, the ] quoted me on that quite a while ago). In theory, however, it should not matter whether or not media is actually "promotional" or not, because there is nothing about something having "an implicit license to reproduce " that should matter in terms of en:'s ] policy; the claim ("rationale"), in theory, needs to be just as compelling for this material as it does for any other unfree content. Of course, we are substantially less likely to get contacted by an irked copyright holder if the media really is promotional, but this should be beside the point. In any case, as I am sure you are aware, the board is doing some thinking about the role of unfree media on the various projects, and it may be that we will get some direction on the larger issue at some point in the not-too-distant future. ] 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point is that from ]#2, the rationale should always contain an statement like "''The use of this image on Misplaced Pages doesn't affect the original's work value''" (that is more or less what's implied from the {{tl|promotional}} tag), but one can't say the original's work value won't be affected without verifiable source info. Like in the case described above, when verifiable source info (the tv-series official site) was addded to the image, it was discovered that by displaying the image we were "''replacing the original market role of the original copyrighted media''" (as the images was intended to increase official site's value, and not ours). | |||
| ::I'm aware of the good news coming from the board and very happy with their announcement too. Do you really think it isn't worth to dispute such "promotional" images by now? The set of "tv-series-character images copied from official websites as promotional" is quite big. And there a reasonable chance that other kinds of unfree images (like screenshots) would still be accepted in some of theses cases (e.g. non-human characters). A cleanup on this set may be needed regardless of the board final statement. --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::To take the last point first, you're quite right that we need to take responsibility for cleaning up our messes, and not wait around for some statement from the Board that will magically make problems go away. Your main point is something that we haven't really explored in all of the discussion about unfree media at en:. Most people know, I think, that we should immediately delete any media that comes from stock photo providers, because the commercial impact is very easy to show. Some people are clear that we shouldn't be using media from information content providers, like CNN, AP, or the BBC, because it is difficult to show that our use is transformative and there is an argument that their value is being similarly impacted. Your position is that other websites depend upon having traffic driven to them, and our use may impact that traffic. I have some sympathy for that argument, but it immediately leads to some very big questions, which I would sum up as "should we be worried about ''Castle Rock vs. Carol Publishing Group''"? -- it is not obvious to me why our image use is significantly different than our publishing of text about other people's intellectual property. I think that we would all agree that we are not in the business of entertainment, but instead that we are offering educational material about our subjects, and our use is in that spirit. If our policy is actually followed, this will be immediately obvious; our claim should be so compelling that even the copyright holder wouldn't disagree with it. In practice we have not yet found a very good way to help users make sure that their uploads are following policy. I therefore suggest that the best way forward in cleanup is to do more or less what we do already -- identify any ways in which individual files may fail policy and tag them for deletion, and take questions about use to discussion forums (like talk pages, project pages, or IfD). All of that said, and I've said quite a lot, we need to be clear on what policy actually is -- replaceability has become quite misunderstood. The point with replaceability should not be "Would it be relatively easy to get a freely licensed image", but, instead, "Is this image absolutely irreplaceable for the article" whether by some other image, text, a diagram, etc. This is precisely where we could use some leadership on the issue, because this makes many users unhappy, and will not be agreed with merely through repetition, reminders of our mission, or pointers to the various (fascinating through repugnant) reuse of our material that is already happening. ] 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the lengthy reply. I will only comment on the "''misunderstanding of replaceability''" part. I understand and agree with this view of what replaceability should mean in FUC. And I agree that all this huge new enforcement of this rule (since later 2006) is still a light interpretation of what the rule is supposed to mean. The "quick test," at the end of ] says it all. But this is so ignored that recently one editor asked in good faith on ] if the word "free" wasn't missing there. We've lost the concept of ] ]. | |||
| ::::I see one area where Misplaced Pages could improve. In it's evangelism of free content. I started using Linux because it was cool and for-free. As I had to read through documentation, websites, news sources, etc., I got in contact with the ] concept, and now I use GNU/Linux because it's ], and I no longer accept using or creating unfree software. I have been evangelized by the ]. I would like to see people that come to Misplaced Pages to write about they favorite tv-series or hip-hop band to become free content enthusiast. But that, unfortunately, is not happening a lot. What I see are more and more established users (even many admins) to outspoke their dislike for "free crusaders" and "evil reusers". We should ask what are we doing wrong here. | |||
| ::::(Thanks for the always insightful talking.) --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == T26withoutturret.jpg and my User Talk Page == | |||
| Thank you for your assiduousness in going about clarifying the image's status. I believe it falls under fair use for several separate reasons, but in order to try and triple-verify this I've pulled it from the article for the time being. I will attend to it. Please also return to my user page and properly re-format it, if you please, as you put your comment inside my barnstar citation somehow and I don't know how to fix it myself. Thank you. ] 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My uploaded images == | |||
| *I tagged a bunch of images I had uploaded with <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki>, whilst also removing my previously added fair use rationale. Though it may not be the perfect db-speedy tag for this purpose, it works. If you have a chance, feel free to go through my latest contribs and delete those newly-tagged images. If not, I'm sure some other Admin will notice it. Hope this helps. Yours, ] 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == Route 82's images == | |||
| Thank you so much for your help. I'm a little confused though, it seems the two of us are reading ] in two different ways. If you could clarify your interpretation either on ] (where I've explained mine) or my talk page, I'd much appreciate it. (The short version, I believe {{tl|Replaceable fair use}} ''can'' be applied to older images.) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent, glad all is clear now. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Press Corps== | |||
| Hey Kelly - Is there any way you can help me get an accreditation program set up for the Commons? I just returned from Wikinews, where I was summarily shown the door and told that the Commons should get its own accreditation program. I think they are right. | |||
| By the way, I just received this message from ]: | |||
| BILLY NAME to me 10:43 pm (9 minutes ago) | |||
| it's ok with me if you want to schedule a portrait shoot, but you'll have to do it up here at my place in poughkeepsie, ny (last stop on metro north line from grand central). i'm honored by your offer. let me know what you have in mind. best, billy name. | |||
| --] 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stolen images== | |||
| Jkelly, you were recommended as someone who has zero tolerance for stolen images. I must ask you to look into the activities of ], his sock GeneralPatton and another possibe sock Brandmeister. I have tried the correct channels but there are so many images and I am so inexperienced that I need some help of any expert. | |||
| Images uploaded by smith2006 that I have positively identified as copyright infringements (all are copyright under ]) belong to two German photographers — Walther Frentz & Jäger Hugo. They are <b>all</b> copyright Ullstein Bild and Getty images respectively. Ullstein Bild have made a legal threat with regard to their images appearing on wikipedia before, (including all tagged Fair Use), this prompted all Frentz images to be removed . <!-- https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=14253&ArticleID=17948&QueueID=7 --> Unfortunately Ullstein and Getty do not allow hotlinking beyond a set period of minutes but if you search at their website according to photographer you will see the images. | |||
| ===Images at issue=== | |||
| Successes: : | |||
| : (blondi photo also remains on wikicommons) | |||
| smith2006 or one of his socks <b>always</b> labels the image ] probably in a deliberate attempt to make discovery of the real copyright holder difficult. smith2006 doesnt know that Frentz and Hugo took the majority of <b>color</b> photos in this period, certainly the ones around the regime inner circle. Hoffmann worked mostly in black & white. | |||
| ===Remaining images=== | |||
| Confirmed Frentz (Copyright Ullstein Bild) | |||
| ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], WIKICOMMONS: ] | |||
| Confirmed Hugo -birthday parade 1939 (Copyright Getty)<!-- Image:Wehrmacht 20th April 1939 Birthday Parade.jpg ? --> | |||
| ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| ]Hello, Jkelly! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for any and all contributions to this freepedia. If you decide that you need help, ask ] or just reach for a beer. Please remember to, um, you know, and all that sort of thing. ''RS good, OR bad.'' Sock it to your readers! -- ] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Unconfirmed copyright (so far): ], ], ], ] | |||
| re roberto calasso - same answer as on my talk page: sorry, my evil twin grabbed the steering wheel] (]) 21:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please bear something in mind; the profiles are of top nazi officials, all of whom were either dead or alive and captured at end of WW2. Either way they were photographed by the Allies- free images. smith2006 has not bothered to source these, nor has he noticed that in the majority of cases the articles <b>already</b> contain free images which describe the object. How can he then claim Fair Use? smith2006 has just gone to a fansite like ww2incolor.com and downloaded the ones he likes best!! | |||
| == Really nice to see you again == | |||
| One last thing, I am not trying to short circuit the system by appealing to you, I just do not have the time to list each and every infringement and fend off defenders of smith2006's behavior. I hope you look into this and checkuser suspect accounts to discover what else has been uploaded. This user should be permabanned for deliberately abusing his upload privileges but from looking at his talk page he has yet to figure out the rules. I have crossposted this to | |||
| user Angr. Thank You. ] 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It seems like you've been gone for years, and I've just noticed you back again. I missed you! It just always brings me pleasure to see you editing, or to see you dealing with other editors in your fantastic gentle, respectful manner. I think you were the first administrator I "met" here, and you've set a benchmark for editing that I've yet to see surpassed. | |||
| :Thanks for investigating, here is another Ullstein image appearing in ] deliberately mislabeled as PD ]. Just got to ullsteinbild.de and search himmler to see the image, navigation to the pages is on the right hand side. ] 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That's all, I just wanted to say hi. All the best! ]] 12:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Image of ice cream maker on French wikipedia == | |||
| ==No content in ]== | |||
| Hi, you may have guessed that I'm interested in ice cream and ice cream makers, etc. I have edited the article ] and have added an image of ]. I have also registered an account with French Misplaced Pages, and have added my machine to the article there. I was able to do that because (at your suggestion), I had started uploading my own images to Commons rather than here. | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|] (] '''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (]).<br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click ''' ] (]) 04:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Jkelly was inducted into ] == | |||
| ] was inducted into<br><br><div class="center"><span style="color: navy; font-family: comic sans ms;"><big>''']'''</big></span></div><br>This portrait of ] was dedicated in her honor.<br><span style="color: navy; font-size: small;">David</span> ''']'''.]]Overdue - you have for years done a lot of great work on photography. The inscription is in the description]]. --<span style="color: navy; font-size: small;">David</span> ''']''' 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Final version== | |||
| That French ] article has an image of the kind of ice cream maker that you put in the freezer, closing the door over the wire, and leaving the paddles to go round until the ice cream is ready. (Incidentally, I don't recommend that type at all; mine is much better!) I'd like to upload that image to Commons, so that I can add it to the English Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| As a contributor to ], I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I want to be sure that I follow the procedures correctly. I know you uploaded my popcorn maker to Commons, and tagged the English Misplaced Pages one with: | |||
| My edit to the Christianity page wasn't a test. I meant it as a serious edit.] (]) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>{{NowCommons|month=February|day=24|year=2007|1={{{1|Image:Popcornmaker.jpg}}}}}</nowiki> | |||
| If I upload it to Commons, do I have to tag the original with something like | |||
| :<nowiki>{{MaintenantCommons|mois=mars|jour=9}}</nowiki> etc., | |||
| or do I leave it in English? I've already noticed that when adding images to French Misplaced Pages, editors leave things like "thumb" and "left" in English. There are a couple of other issues/questions: | |||
| #The current title of the image is ]. "Sobetière" is not a word: it should be "Sorbetière". I'd like to correct it when uploading it to Commons. Obviously I'd check the French ] and fix any links as necessary. | |||
| #The user uploaded it with the description: "Photographie de ma sorbetière autonome." It's ''not'' a "sorbetière autonome", since it doesn't have its own inbuilt freezing element. It's a "sorbetière simple". ] is a "sorbetière autonome". Am I supposed to copy the description that the original uploader gave? | |||
| #The uploader tagged it as "CC-BY-SA". I suppose if I'm copying the image exactly, I just copy the tag, but I'd actually like to crop it first. I don't have any expertise in picture editing, but I ''can'' take a few centimetres off the edges, and usually do with my own images. This one, I think, needs to be cropped at the top and the right, to remove empty containers from the background, and put the ice cream maker more in the centre. Does it introduce extra complications if I take off the edges? | |||
| #The editor ]. Am I supposed to contact him/her out of courtesy, since I want to crop the image, change its title, and change its description? (I suppose I could send an e-mail.) | |||
| == Communitychannel == | |||
| I don't want to put you to any extra trouble (and certainly not to the amount of trouble that the length of this post would suggest!), but I wonder if you could simply ''warn'' me if you predict from this that I'm walking into a mess, or if you could look through it after I've done it, to make sure that I haven't botched up anything. Thanks (as usual), and there's absolutely no hurry with this. I'd also like to add content (i.e. text) to the ice cream maker article. The image isn't urgent at all. ] ] 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I am trying to get two files (http://en.wikipedia.org/File:NT_Bus_stop_Say_Goodbye_scene.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/File:NT_vlog_general.jpg) accepted by OTRS into commons. I have put the ticket numbers onto the respective pages but haven't heard from any OTRS volunteers since I did that. I admit I am fairly new and I may be missing a step, but I believe that copyright permission from the author has been proved (sent to permissions-commons@wiki) and I have done what I am supposed to. I would greatly appreciate your attention/guidance. Thanks, --] (]) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| :Thanks very much. I've uploaded ] at Commons, both in the original version and in a cropped version. I'm afraid the file history is longer than it should be, because when I was trying to look at an earlier version, I accidentally reverted back to it, and had to revert my revert! I've tagged ] at French Misplaced Pages, and have added the new one to ] here, and to ] at fr. It would be kind if you'd take a look at the file at commons, to check that I've done everything properly. ] ] 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You are listed as the uploader of . I'm curious how you came by it. My father, a psychoanalyst, has a copy in his office (8x10). I need to ask him where his came from, but I'm curious about your source. Thanks. ] (]) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::And thank you for . :) ] ] 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Jkelly, | |||
| == Update: ] == | |||
| I'm asking your advice on the issue of NF pictures where the copyright holder is unknown. I see from the archive that you the "where possible" from this requirement in the NFC criteria. I'd like to know if specifying the copyright holder is a legal requirement for claiming fair use of non-free content. I appreciate that if it is, then "we canot make an exception to identifying copyright holder because research is hard" (your edit summary) but there are some consequences, I think: | |||
| As someone more familiar with Misplaced Pages's image policy than me, you may want to respond to Route 82's recent comment on ] (and elsewhere), claiming he has permission to use the images on Misplaced Pages from the copyright owner. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| #Almost none of WP's non-free images mention the copyright holder. | |||
| #Many such images have attribution/sourcing that is limited to a URL to where the image was found. | |||
| #Since, on the web, the source of an image (the web page) is very often not the original publisher of the image, and even the original publisher is not often the copyright holder, it seems likely that criterion 10a is not being met by nearly all non-free images on WP. | |||
| #Some editors point out that the copyright holder can be assumed to be the author, or the publisher (e.g. the record label). I suspect both of these conflicting opinions are too simplistic. Therefore one cannot just guess who the copyright holder is. | |||
| #I think (but not sure) that licensing info is not the same as copyright info. For example, the photo could be licensed from Corbis but the copyright lies with the photographer. | |||
| #Unless the source of the image mentions who the copyright holder is, it would often require a professional search to find out. | |||
| #If the copyright-holder aspect of 10a was enforced (and properly, not just taking someone's word (guess) for it), most non-free images on WP would be deleted. | |||
| #There is tension at AfD where images are being criticised for failing the second-part of 10a, despite this being true for nearly all other non-free images. I know ] but this is ]. | |||
| Would it be possible for you to comment on this matter. Any talk-page lurkers with legal knowledge on this matter are also welcome (those whose opinion is uninformed are not :-). Thanks very much. ]°] 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Identifying the copyright holder is really important! Ignoring all of the practical benefits of doing so for the moment, the author of any article containing the potentially infringing content should be very motivated to demonstrate that they were engaged in best practices, or, as we might put it, acting in good faith. | |||
| == Question about images == | |||
| :I think that you're overstating the difficulty here a little. Most of our non-free content is album/book/movie/video game covers. This stuff is just copyright the producer. It's really easy to identify. Maybe we'll get that wrong from time to time when there's an unusual arrangement we don't know about, but I wouldn't worry much about that. Stuff that's just listed with a link isn't properly sourced, so it has a problem beyond just identifying the copyright holder. Who's the author? Where did it come from? If it's just random stuff from some webpage, we should make a replacement ourselves. Stuff from image databases like Corbis is radioactive, and we shouldn't go anywhere near it, so it doesn't matter whether Corbis is the copyright holder. I'm inclined to think that stuff that a) is really hard to source, b) is really necessary for the encyclopedia project, c) fits our criteria for including non-free content (including cannot be replaced in any way) is going to be such a small category that we can take the time to do a search for it. ] (]) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| At this link (dsal.uchicago.edu/images) it describes its image use policy. Could you tell me if images from here are eligible for Misplaced Pages? Thanks! Sincerely, --] 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for replying. There's a proposal over at ] you might like to comment on. I have a book which credits the cover design to one person and the cover photo to Corbis but doesn't say the copyright belongs to the designer (it might not, I gather, if their work isn't sufficiently original). Could we use such a book cover on WP even though the only copyright on the book cover might be the Corbis photo, which you say are radioactive. Most of the books I've looked at don't claim copyright for the publisher but for photographer/agency licensing the photos used or occasionally the artist. This makes me think the default "copyright belongs to the publisher" is wrong too often.]°] 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==New image project== | |||
| Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects ], ], ] and ] into the newly formed ] has met with general support at ]. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. | |||
| Conversation about redirecting those projects is located ]. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey there - are you ? --<span style="color: navy; font-family: comic sans ms; font-size: small;">>David</span> ''']''' 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Canada at FAR == | |||
| :Actually, reading it more closely it sounds like no. So, never mind. Thanks anyway. --] 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{#if:Oei888|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe I have seen some of the soldier's photos somewhere, perhaps on Wiki Commons. Maybe that was another WWII Soldier. As you say, it would be insightful to try. And I might learn something. Thanks! Sincerely, --] 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Featured Articles review == | ||
| {{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. I'm notifying you since I see you initiated the peer review ages ago. -] (]) 04:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on ]. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == GAR notification == | |||
| == Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds == | |||
| Letting you know I've opened a GAR for ], and you're the top contributor. You can read my concerns ]. Thanks, ]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A Request for Comment on Burt Reynolds' birthplace has been opened at ]. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FAR notice == | |||
| == Three recent image-related issues == | |||
| {{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].-- ''']''' (]) 01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I seem to have run into three image-related issues. One, the ] thing, I think you're aware of. | |||
| == Hello Jkelly == | |||
| Another relates to ]: can only be used in articles. This normally means they are removed on sight from templates, so I'm wondering whether they could be limited by a namespace check to only appear in articles. Couldn't seem to get people past the "never in templates" response, so modified {{tl|Evanescence}} as a test case. The image currently there is not the logo (which is actually another issue - is that image free if it is "inspired" by the logo?), but I'm still wondering if the approach in the template might be tolerable, and what would be needed to make it comply with policy. What exactly *is* a fair use claim for a logo, because I don't really find it essential to have a sports or band logo in most articles, except when the logo has changed and this history is discussed. | |||
| Dear Jkelly, | |||
| Finally, it appears that "discography" pages are currently being targetted as if the album covers were galleries of fair use images. This is upsetting a number of editors of music articles at the moment. Are these allowed, and if so what needs to be done for compliance? ] 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman. | |||
| Also, might I get an opinion on ]. Is there any chance the uploader is the professional photographer who took the photo? ] 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual. | |||
| : Thanks for the responses. The user who uploaded the last image is continuing to upload images without response. A couple articles will have a few redlinks in a week, and we'll have to find the original image and caption again. It's a pain. | |||
| : The Evanescence thing isn't over. The "inspired" image is now listed ]. Don't suppose you would like to comment? | |||
| : As for discography, ] says don't use album covers, but then says "this is disputed". WP:FU says that cover art may not be used for "identification without critical commentary". Some music editors understand this to mean that it's OK for indentification with critical commentary, and that critical commentary "of the album" suffices (ie, not just of the cover art). | |||
| : I suppose the large quantity of bad images results in a certain sort of behaviour from the editors who deal with images. I don't really envy them. However, this approach seems to be causing undue problems. A nice clear message from the top and editors would likely get into line on their own, with the adversarial approach. ] 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Misplaced Pages, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators. | |||
| There are two images involved in the Evanescance debate. The specific graphic files were created by a wikipedian and are hosted at commons. One image replicates the band logo, and this is used in the band article. It *was* used in a navigation template also, until I experimented with noinclude in the template and someone noticed. The other image is in the same font as the band logo, and is currently used in user boxes. In order to cut the edit warring over the actual logo, I put the userbox image in the article navigation template, assuming that it was a "free" image. Now, for reasons I still don't understand, someone has put up the userbox image for deletion. ] 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| thanks much, | |||
| : I just want to say thanks again for taking the time to provide rational, non-confrontational response. I would give you a barnstar if I could think of one someone else hasn't already given. ] 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| sincerely | |||
| == Fair use question for ] == | |||
| Pdiffenderfer (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, you were recommended for this sort of fair use question. Considering that ] is the leader of a nation, I think that there should be a picture of him. But there is not. Can this picture from the leader's home page be considered fair use if used ? ] 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| paul m. diffenderfer | |||
| == RFC: Old Farmer's Almanac == | |||
| düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ==Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity== | |||
| I am an employee of Yankee Publishing, Inc., of Dublin, New Hampshire. | |||
| {{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|Inactive admin}} | |||
| ] | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 21:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Whatever Happened to the West album cover.jpg== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Two months ago, I volunteered to update the Misplaced Pages listing for The Old Farmer’s Almanac – a publication owned by my employer. | |||
| '''PLEASE NOTE:''' | |||
| I am contacting you because you have previously edited this listing. | |||
| * I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{tlp|helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message. | |||
| I have endeavored to follow Misplaced Pages’s guidelines to the best of my knowledge and ability, and would appreciate your input on the ] I posted today on the Almanac’s discussion page. | |||
| * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. | |||
| * If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request. | |||
| * To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page. | |||
| *If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ]. | |||
| Best, ] 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Fair use in Template == | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Janet Farrar in Osiris pose.jpg== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 04:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I saw your comment at ] and this is very possible. The question is: what do you want to happen and where? It could be a category (if so, which one?) or even put a speedy deletion tag on the image, using CSD #7 "Invalid fair-use claim" as the reason, since, it seems to me, they aren't really claiming what article it's fair use in and as such is malformed. But I can see the category method as well. Let me know what your thoughts are and what you'd like and I should be able to whip it up fairly fast. Getting an admin to edit the template(s) (fair use in2-5) to include this would be the tricky part. --]≈<small>]</small> 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Take a look at ] (and the talk page really for the example usage). Not including a first variable will have it include that category that shows up at the bottom. Really just had to add <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{{1|}}}| |]}}</nowiki></code> between the includeonly's at the bottom to get this to work. If you're fine with the name of the category can set it up. Could also add a big box that tries to grab the attention of the uploader saying they didn't use the template properly and to fix it as well. --]≈<small>]</small> 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done. Please take a look at let me know. The font size might be a little big. If you think so, turning it down to 2em works well, I think. --]≈<small>]</small> 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of change== | |||
| == Deleted Flickr images == | |||
| Hello. You are receiving this message because of a ] to the ] that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new ]. Until December 30, you can file a request at ] for review by the crats. Thank you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <small>(delivered by <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC))</small> | |||
| Is there something that's supposed to happen with Flickr images that have had the licenses changed or have been deleted? Specifically, I'm working on the article ], which uses that was deleted from Flickr. It was uploaded by ], so I'm sure that the license was valid, but without any evidence of that, what happens to the image? ] 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Orphaned non-free media (File:Ways of the Strega book cover.jpg) == | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == FA fair use == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Well, I think that ] could do a better job at filtering improper fair use. Hopefully these things will be more clear after the Board passes its resolution on a project-wide licensing policy.--]] 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Greetings== | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks!! No, I had not seen that yet. Reading it now. Cheers, ] ] 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==About the 3RR comment== | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Exemption Doctrine Policy listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Misplaced Pages:Exemption Doctrine Policy'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:A Rock In The Weary Land Waterboys Album Cover.jpg== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| If the use of fair-use images would be a "potential copyright infringement", Misplaced Pages would be a potential copyright infringement. Almost all the article (with images) use fair-use images. Examples, anime, music, movies, science, technology, art (and a lot or more topics) article use fair-use images, because free-use image don't exist for most of the article from this topics. Anime...does it exist a free-use image of a cover of an OVA? Music...Does it exist a free-image of a copyrighted logo or album cover? Tech...Does it exist a free-use image of de Microsoft logo, or a Windows XP screenshoot, no! ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Geronimo Steve Wickham Album Cover.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 03:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Room To Roam Waterboys Album Cover.jpg== | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. | |||
| If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> | |||
| Could you help me to find out the correct fair use template from ]. Then after I can replace that template for other similar Sri Lankan pictures, as a help for you guys. --] ]</sup> 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, ]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details. Thanks, ] (]) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :The reason that I choose the {{tl|HistoricPhoto}} was, in the ] says ''for unique, famous historical photographs''. Since ] killed 103 unarmed ] sailors, as a Sri Lankan, that picture is obviously notable to me and other Sri Lankan in here because this incident was the largest casualty number from one attack. On the Misplaced Pages side, this is one of the biggest terrorist incident. | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| :The picture that you are going to delete is the remains of the bomb laden truck. So isn't unique or historical? --] ]</sup> 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| ::Certainly have no dog in this fight, but we generally have permitted non-repeatable and historical news photos - ], ], various terror attacks; are you saying now that those articles have to be about the '''photo''' in order for the fair use claim to be Misplaced Pages valid? This seems to be a dangerous overinterpretation... ] ] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| ==Page move gripe== | |||
| ] seems to have fallen on deaf ears (pardon the cliche); could you possibly take a look? Thank you! -- ] 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 21:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Protection of ] == | |||
| ==] has been nominated for deletion== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>]</sup> 22:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Re : I semi-protected for a week when I enabled protection. I was wondering if there was some strange thing going around on him: some type of coordinated attack, but I guess it's more like a bad rumor email going around. Hopefully the email was stop spreading after a week. Didn't know the Foundation (?) was getting email about it. -- ] 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FAR for Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches == | |||
| ] has nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] (]) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Re : Great... I went back a bit further in the history to triple check things and the correct revision is now is place. It all started with {{User|167.7.17.3}}. I thought maybe the Talk page was going to get out of hand next, but it seems to have settle down. I added the article to my watchlist as you suggested; a sleeper account arrived, but then reverted himself. -- ] 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Buidhe@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Buidhe/test&oldid=1104168370 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 17:09, 19 June 2023
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Jkelly has not edited Misplaced Pages since October 14, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
- Archive 1 (September 2 2005 to November 7 2005)
- Archive 2 (November 7 2005 to January 8 2006)
- Archive 3 (January 10 2006 to March 10 2006)
- Archive 4 (March 11 2006 to May 1 2006)
- Archive 5 (May 2 2006 to June 23 2006)
- Archive 6 (June 23 2006 to August 5 2006)
- Archive 7 (August 5 2006 to October 31 2006)
- Archive 8 (October 31 2006 to January 30 2007)
- Archive 9 (January 31 2007 to March 21 2007)
- Archive 10 (March 13 2007 to December 1 2007)
- Archive 11 (December 1 2007 to December 24 2008)
Happy holidays!
I hope all is well, Jkelly, and that you have a wonderful holiday season and a great rest of 2008! Cheers, Iamunknown 09:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jkelly! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for any and all contributions to this freepedia. If you decide that you need help, ask Krampus or just reach for a beer. Please remember to, um, you know, and all that sort of thing. RS good, OR bad. Sock it to your readers! -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
re roberto calasso - same answer as on my talk page: sorry, my evil twin grabbed the steering wheelPilobola (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Really nice to see you again
It seems like you've been gone for years, and I've just noticed you back again. I missed you! It just always brings me pleasure to see you editing, or to see you dealing with other editors in your fantastic gentle, respectful manner. I think you were the first administrator I "met" here, and you've set a benchmark for editing that I've yet to see surpassed.
That's all, I just wanted to say hi. All the best! Fuzzypeg★ 12:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No content in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of User:ZoguShqiptar700
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of User:ZoguShqiptar700, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of User:ZoguShqiptar700 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of User:ZoguShqiptar700, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Jkelly was inducted into The Hall of The Greats
The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Frank McCourt was dedicated in her honor.
David Shankbone.
Overdue - you have for years done a lot of great work on photography. The inscription is in the description]]. --David Shankbone 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Final version
As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Christianity
My edit to the Christianity page wasn't a test. I meant it as a serious edit.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Communitychannel
Hi, I am trying to get two files (http://en.wikipedia.org/File:NT_Bus_stop_Say_Goodbye_scene.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/File:NT_vlog_general.jpg) accepted by OTRS into commons. I have put the ticket numbers onto the respective pages but haven't heard from any OTRS volunteers since I did that. I admit I am fairly new and I may be missing a step, but I believe that copyright permission from the author has been proved (sent to permissions-commons@wiki) and I have done what I am supposed to. I would greatly appreciate your attention/guidance. Thanks, ----aaftabj-- (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Question
You are listed as the uploader of this file. I'm curious how you came by it. My father, a psychoanalyst, has a copy in his office (8x10). I need to ask him where his came from, but I'm curious about your source. Thanks. PalMD (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 41#Unknown copyright holder?
Jkelly,
I'm asking your advice on the issue of NF pictures where the copyright holder is unknown. I see from the archive that you removed the "where possible" from this requirement in the NFC criteria. I'd like to know if specifying the copyright holder is a legal requirement for claiming fair use of non-free content. I appreciate that if it is, then "we canot make an exception to identifying copyright holder because research is hard" (your edit summary) but there are some consequences, I think:
- Almost none of WP's non-free images mention the copyright holder.
- Many such images have attribution/sourcing that is limited to a URL to where the image was found.
- Since, on the web, the source of an image (the web page) is very often not the original publisher of the image, and even the original publisher is not often the copyright holder, it seems likely that criterion 10a is not being met by nearly all non-free images on WP.
- Some editors point out that the copyright holder can be assumed to be the author, or the publisher (e.g. the record label). I suspect both of these conflicting opinions are too simplistic. Therefore one cannot just guess who the copyright holder is.
- I think (but not sure) that licensing info is not the same as copyright info. For example, the photo could be licensed from Corbis but the copyright lies with the photographer.
- Unless the source of the image mentions who the copyright holder is, it would often require a professional search to find out.
- If the copyright-holder aspect of 10a was enforced (and properly, not just taking someone's word (guess) for it), most non-free images on WP would be deleted.
- There is tension at AfD where images are being criticised for failing the second-part of 10a, despite this being true for nearly all other non-free images. I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but this is WP:ITISALLCRAP.
Would it be possible for you to comment on this matter. Any talk-page lurkers with legal knowledge on this matter are also welcome (those whose opinion is uninformed are not :-). Thanks very much. Colin° 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Identifying the copyright holder is really important! Ignoring all of the practical benefits of doing so for the moment, the author of any article containing the potentially infringing content should be very motivated to demonstrate that they were engaged in best practices, or, as we might put it, acting in good faith.
- I think that you're overstating the difficulty here a little. Most of our non-free content is album/book/movie/video game covers. This stuff is just copyright the producer. It's really easy to identify. Maybe we'll get that wrong from time to time when there's an unusual arrangement we don't know about, but I wouldn't worry much about that. Stuff that's just listed with a link isn't properly sourced, so it has a problem beyond just identifying the copyright holder. Who's the author? Where did it come from? If it's just random stuff from some webpage, we should make a replacement ourselves. Stuff from image databases like Corbis is radioactive, and we shouldn't go anywhere near it, so it doesn't matter whether Corbis is the copyright holder. I'm inclined to think that stuff that a) is really hard to source, b) is really necessary for the encyclopedia project, c) fits our criteria for including non-free content (including cannot be replaced in any way) is going to be such a small category that we can take the time to do a search for it. Jkelly (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. There's a proposal over at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content you might like to comment on. I have a book which credits the cover design to one person and the cover photo to Corbis but doesn't say the copyright belongs to the designer (it might not, I gather, if their work isn't sufficiently original). Could we use such a book cover on WP even though the only copyright on the book cover might be the Corbis photo, which you say are radioactive. Most of the books I've looked at don't claim copyright for the publisher but for photographer/agency licensing the photos used or occasionally the artist. This makes me think the default "copyright belongs to the publisher" is wrong too often.Colin° 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Free images, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Frank McCourt
Hey there - are you aware of Frank McCourt's illness? -->David Shankbone 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Canada at FAR
User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Featured Articles review
I have nominated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. I'm notifying you since I see you initiated the peer review ages ago. -Verdatum (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
GAR notification
Letting you know I've opened a GAR for Janet Farrar, and you're the top contributor. You can read my concerns here. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated The Waterboys for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jkelly
Dear Jkelly,
I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman.
It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual.
If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Misplaced Pages, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators.
thanks much,
sincerely
Pdiffenderfer (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
paul m. diffenderfer
düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdiffenderfer (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Whatever Happened to the West album cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Whatever Happened to the West album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Janet Farrar in Osiris pose.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Janet Farrar in Osiris pose.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
(delivered by mabdul 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC))
Orphaned non-free media (File:Ways of the Strega book cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Ways of the Strega book cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Exemption Doctrine Policy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:Exemption Doctrine Policy. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:Exemption Doctrine Policy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:A Rock In The Weary Land Waterboys Album Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:A Rock In The Weary Land Waterboys Album Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Geronimo Steve Wickham Album Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Geronimo Steve Wickham Album Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Room To Roam Waterboys Album Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Room To Roam Waterboys Album Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Inkubus Sukkubus albums has been nominated for deletion
Category:Inkubus Sukkubus albums has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 22:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches
User:Buidhe has nominated Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories: