Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:24, 30 January 2009

Archives

Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I typically reply here, and, if I do, I will typically tag you in the message. If I haven't gotten back to you in a week and/or haven't gotten to something I said would, feel free to leave a reminder.

Image:MLV1.jpg

The image is a blatant copyvio and I have tagged it as such. The purported source had not even started publishing until 1983. PD-India requires content to be published atleast by 1948. Next time, take the time to examine an issue before you jump to revert. Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

EDMOND HALL IMAGES

Hello, all the images used are entirely taken out of Manfred Selchow's book "Profoundly Blue - A Bio-Discographical Scrapbook on Edmond Hall" I am in contact with the author and he has given me the permission to use the material of his book (text and pictures). He is the copyright holder of the images which were printed in the out of print Biography on Edmond Hall in 1986, published by Uhle and Kleimann. All the pictures are tagged as such.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)

There's not much more that I can do, except for adding the author's address for contact in case of any further needed proof. Selchow does not own a computer and has to be contacted by mail or telephone. - Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)

The permission was given to me to use it under GNU license criteria (for the very purpose wikipedia exists). I wish I could give you a link to Selchow to erase any possible suspicions - I could- actually but again it'll be by phone or mail, Selchow is 72 years of age and never followed up on computers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)

Yes. I am in contact with him (have his telephone# and also mailing-address) I just received a letter from him yesterday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)

I'd gladly do the same for the trombonist Vic Dickenson (also a Selchow Book) but at this point in time I simply don't have enough time on hand (The Dickenson Biography is over 900 pages!!!) He even asked me if I was going to update Misplaced Pages on Dickinson as well, as he realizes of what value the site is and keeping those events and people on record for the present and future generations (Selchow was a teacher)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)

Wow! So basically all my work will be deleted - even though it falls under the GNU criteria according to my explanation - why is it that one's own effort that is meant for everyone else but oneself must always be beyond that of anything else? It would be very appreciated if the pictures could stay up, until I get the letter - that is very, very frustrating I don't think people realize the time and effort on it... very upsetting. Jens Schnabel, RX7_3rotors

J Milburn, thank you for your helpful words in your last note - I'll try to put on the tag you send me as soon as possible, I am sure I'll struggle to find a way to get those on - as I always have so far, trying to familiarize with the system. I am just writing a letter to Manfred Selchow to get him to send a letter to the Wikimedia office in San Francisco, which, I am sure he will. He lives in Germany so it'll take some time. Jens Schnabel, RX7_3rotors

Hello J Milburn, I just spoke with Manfred Selchow this morning, he has received my letter and sent the needed information off today (because of the copyright-insecurity). I have not added any more pictures to the Edmond Hall page, and won't until his letter of confirmation has arrived. Dec. 10th 2008, J Schnabel - RX7_3rotors

Hello, I received the Declaration Letter from Manfred Selchow yesterday and just sent it to The San Francisco office (to Mr.Cary Bass), Jens schnabel, RX7_3rotors Dec, 16th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting him know. Jens - RX7_3rotors comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)dec. 18, 2008

My internet was down so I just get back to finishing off the page - in the end everything is just the way I said it was, it's a shame that nobody can be trusted anymore - I hate it!!! I'll try to add the tags to the other pic's I'll upload, if for some reason I can't do it, I'll let you know and will need for your help. Jens - RX7_3rotors comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs)dec. 20, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image uploading

Hi J Milburn - saw you added a template to Image:Mine at Gabbs Nevada.jpg, which I created this evening. I know it'll need to wait to have the permission confirmed (I emailed the exchange I had with the creator, in which he agreed to the picture's use under GFDL, to permissions-en@wikipedia.org), but otherwise was the procedure I followed in creating the file OK? Is that template something I should be adding myself? This is my first bash at uploading and, even copyright notwithstanding, I got a bit bogged down in the instructions. Cheers. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the prompt response- just to check, generally should I add that tag myself if I upload images under the same circumstances in future? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Grand - thanks very much! Gonzonoir (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This Is Halloween

Thanks for the cleanup on This Is Halloween. It was a horrible mess and I just haven't had the time to try to work on it; I'm up to my eyeballs in other Halloweeny things at the moment. Now I can look at it without my eyes bleeding!--otherlleft 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yourself and Philknight

I apologize for characterizing you and User:Philknight as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza- obviously there is no anti-art cabal on WP. I was extremely angry, and personal attacks were obviously inappropriate. It still concerns me, however, that such a discrepancy exists in FU policy- artwork must be used in the context of critical commentary, but it's acceptable to use album covers and logos merely for the purpose of identification? I understand where you are coming from on images-- when dealing with music there is no reason to use the album cover on more than one article, as it does not add anything much to general discussions of musical genres. However, in articles on art movements, it is important to be able to see works by different proponents of the movement simultaneously, side by side, so that the consistency of style can be observed, as well as the differences. Tyrenius has proposed a collaboration between WPVA members, yourself, and PhilKnight on color theory, so that some model of appropriate fair use in an art movement article can be established. My participation in such a group will be limited, as my views are rather uncompromising and inflammable. Instead I will focus on uploading PDUS works by modern artists and making sure that PDUS works are not tagged as FU and unnecessarily shrunk or deleted. Thanks, and sorry. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A belated reply...

...to your message of 8th October, which I'd not picked up. I'd deleted you from my contact list - am I correct in thinking it's your Hotmail account I need, not your Gmail?--Vox Humana 8' 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: General point...

Thank you for your helpful message you left on my talk page. I guess I was not as clear about my opinion as I would have liked to have been, so I will try and clear it up here.

Per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Images: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I was trying to explain that an album cover lacks the critical commentary needed to be considered fair use at its most basic if the album title is not even mentioned in the article. In no way do I think the album title is enough to be considered critical commentary, but it is the first step towards establishing if there is critical commentary. In this case no mention of the ablum title in the article shows that there is clearly no critical commentary in the article that would make the album cover an acceptable fair use case. Aspects (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Bot

Hey there! Nice to see you. I first saw you in the revision history of Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee. I came here because if All Game Guide really is being rebranded, why not use a bot to do it for you? -- MISTER ALCOHOL 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Hey J,

I don't know if you had ever interacted with him much, but in case you were interested there is a RFC/U regarding him here. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man. BOZ (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

X Factor

Hiya, I noticed this and would like to point out that Born to Try is NOT the winners single this year. I would like that section removed please. At least Hallelujah has some sources (even if unreliable), Born to Try has non that i've seen! Thanks JS (chat) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! It really bugs me when unlikely, or just downright incorrect information is on wikipedia (even when in hidden comment form). I'll remove the section. Again, thanks! Happy editing :-) JS (chat) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicola Roberts

Hi J Milburn. I reverted the edit because the user concerned has a history of being disruprive, and her edits to the band members of Girls Aloud as a whole seemed also to be disruptive, and were inconsistent anyway. Discographies were added to some articles, while being deleted from others (see this, this, this, this and this). I'm happy for the discography to be included, but think the same should apply to the articles concerning the other four members of the band. Thanks Paul Largo (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have now added the information to all related articles. Hope this is all right. Thanks Paul Largo (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've actually removed the information again. The reason I've done this is because it is duplicating information on the Girls Aloud discography page. There is no real reason to have it on their article pages - I think a link to the discography page is sufficient. However, if you want to revert my edit and put it back, I don't mind. ~~ 23:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:'Roots', oil on canvas painting by Maya Cohen Levy, 2002, private collection.jpg

You nominated the above image for deletion. An editor has added commentary to the Maya Cohen Levy article to support using the image. Please comment back at the IFD if you want. Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mahraz Darshan Das Jee & Sikh Extremism

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Why are you contacting me? Discuss the matter with the deleting admin, and stop this sniping. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Mahraz_Darshan_Das_Jee article was deleted shortly after I created the article Sikh Extremism which focuses on religious fundamentalist terrorism. I will come to the connection further down.

There is a section in the discussion of Sikh Extremism titled "Misplaced Pages being used as a propaganda platform" It seems strangely ironic coming from an editor (Roadahead) who wanted and voted for its deletion, but perhaps that's his intention ?

After I started working on the article Sikh Extremism, a number of pro-extremists angrily voiced to have the article deleted. After a period of discussion all the admins who contributed (Flewis, LeagleEagle and DJ Clayworth) voted to keep the article after checking all the references such as: http://www.milnet.com/tgp/data/sikh.htm

Those of us editors (Enzuru, Vivin, LeagleEagle & myself ) who have expressed its validity have had our contributions monitored and discussed on talkpages, subequently many of our contributions on the discussion boards have been removed and the Sikh Extremism article has had countless vandalism attacks by those (originally wishing for its deletion) now wishing to distort or remove references like GlobalSecurity BBC CBC News Rediff which are being touted as rubbish. I personally have been accused of being an extremist as was Terry Milewski of CBC News whose reference was also removed form the article regarding Sikh terrorism in Canada.

As far as the article Mahraz Darshan Das Jee is concerned in connection with Sikh Extremism, its interesting that this peace campaigner and humanitarian was murdered in 1987 by Sikh Extremists who saw him as a threat to their theocratic politics. He was not involved in terrorism or politics and his article was on Misplaced Pages prior to the article I began on Sikh Extremism, unfortunately it attracted people who wanted his article deleted simply on grounds of copyright which are not even copyrighted anyway and can be freely distributed, but it wasn't even asked if it could be reverted back to its version prior to the creation of Sikh Extremism article

If you can put this back, to that version which can be worked and expanded on before user:Roadahead condemned it to the dustbin, I and many others would appreciate it.

I would also like point out that the ISYF International Sikh Youth Federation was banned under EU, US, Indian & Canadian terrorism legislation across the world. But they continue to operate through the internet through distortion, manipulation through SikhiWiki

If its OK, I would like to create a page on Darshan Das as he was known.

Thank you Satanoid (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Satanoid, before you accuse Roadahead of vandalism, please note your own history of vandalism:

I am not the primary author of this article and I luckily came across it while following an extremist editor i.e. author of this article, i.e. User Talk: satanoid. I had a chance to read Sikh extremism and the original article Khalistan movement and found it a distorted form of existing wikipedia article Khalistan movement only. This bad faith article has been created by User Talk: satanoid to satisfy his own extremism and spread hate WP:POV against Sikhism only. It is necessary to go through his history to understand his actual motive behind creating such hateful article which does not make any sence.

• His initial Biography
• Here is the list of all the IP addresses (registered to Easynet Ltd, BSkyB Broadband) which he has used so far:

90.196.3.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.3.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Here he has mistakenly proved his link with one of above mentioned IP Addresses.
• He was blocked several times because of his same hatefull acts but wikipedia could not find a permanent solution so far.
• He is simply using his manipulation skills to spread baseless hate against a religion, which he hates, through this article. Remember, He can delete contents from an editor's talk page and 'can put the blame on the victim immediately afterwards. He, through Sikh extremism, is manipulating information from Khalistan movement in a similar way to spread hate WP:POV against Sikhism on Misplaced Pages. Khalistan movement was a political movement similar to Indian independence movement. Both of these came into existence because of major independence issues felt by certain citizens of their respective countries. --Irek Biernat (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One point I agree is Sikhiwiki refrences should be removed.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All you seem to be doing is copying and pasting the above chunk from a discussion board from the article Sikh Extremism which had a section on Sikh terrorism deleted by you Satanoid (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As for your personal attack on me: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Sikh_extremism&diff=prev&oldid=257268543 Satanoid (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Point out a fact, is not a personal attack. You do not understand the basics of wikipedia and your spoofing record stands for itself! Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not in a position where I can respond to these comments. I will reply tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Imperial Triple Crown jewels

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Ajuga genevensis - thank you for creating this well-sourced and informative piece. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply comment. I do most enjoy writing new articles and improving articles to higher standards of quality assessment. Cirt (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagging images for deletion

When someone explicitly states that they created the image themselves, then surely GFDL is at least implied? I know I forgot to add the tag but is it really necessary to put a delete template on the image? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rogers Album Image

Hey, thanks for the good faith edit on the image I uploaded. However, I forgot to do a page move to the new article name that the image is supposed to be on, so I'm reverting the edit and completing that page move right now. Thanks for watching that though, just in case it had been an error in the image info. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohegan Sun Arena image

Concerning Image:ArenaatMoheganSun.jpg

Hi, I recently uploaded a new version of the picture. There was already a picture of the arena there and I had sorted it out with someone that my rationale was acceptable. However, when I uploaded a new version under the same licensing, it was marked.

The rationale remained the same.

Cameras are NOT under any circumstances allowed into the arena except by media personell. Someone who had a camera in the arena (a media person) took this photograph. I then asked for permission to use this photo here on wikipedia. They said they would have no problem with that whatsoever. I licensed the photo properly. I gave credit to the photographer properly. I gave rationale which was PREVIOUSLY accepted. So I do not know why this picture was tagged for deletion.

Thank you, Nickv1025 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pic Editor96

Hi, User:Pic Editor96 has just left me a very strange message on my talk page. S/he has also just vandalised Alexandra Burke, although s/he performed a self-revert! I get the feeling that this user is just out to be silly & cause disruption. Also, I noticed s/he is on a final warning. Do you think his/her behavior has crossed the line? Cheers JS (chat) 19:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Howe Island Pigeon

Gee, thanks. Truth be told, some articles just have better content to work with than others. I'm not sure I should take much of the credit. WilyD 18:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In response

In response to "That's not funny, that's just offensive. I have deleted the image you uploaded, and I reccomend that you start to behave a little more responsibly. Continue like that, and you will certainly find yourself blocked." :

It was a preview/image testing. Tried to preview the page (sorry) Immediately undid revision when I realized it was saved onto the page. Now you can stop being a #$%@ and stay the #$%! off my talk page. Thank you. -- Wilkos (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious dude? You're gonna link me to WP:CIV? I already told you what I did, and why, and no. No sandbox. I was testing image deletion policy regarding copyright. Now stay the &*#$%# off my talk page unless you have something important to say regarding anything besides how you think i'm inappropriate. Jerk. -- Wilkos (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. I do not want to continue this conversation. I feel you are bothering me and won't stop leaving messages on my talk page when I tell you not to. I also don't want to continue this conversation because I don't want to be blocked over "offending" someone from a mistake I made and apologized for. Oh, I'm sorry, do I offend you? You know what offends me? Wannabe admins complaining about nonsense on my talk page. If you had "respect for the project", you would be doing something productive rather than arguing with a user who keeps requesting you to stop. Quit complaining. Leave me alone. GTFO my talk page. KTHX. -- Wilkos (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I'm done "sticking it out" with you. You win, God, because I don't want to be blocked by your majesty. And what exactly is '"your" talk page' supposed to mean? Is this some sort of ironic "your"? -- Wilkos (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know opinions were attacks. Sorry. Like I said, I'm done, 'cause I don't wanna be blocked. Wilkos (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alexandra Burke.png

This is a free image, I own all the copyrights. A friend captured the image at the live show of the X Factor 2008 finals, he had allowed me to use it on wikipedia. A noticed has been placed on the image and instructs me to add tags or captions which I do not know how to do. Mevish1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

Happy holidays

Thank you for your help since I arrived here. I wish you and yours a very merry Christmas. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thanks for the star! I'm always happy to help out :-) JS (chat) 13:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Woolworths, Merrion Centre

Problem sorted, my mistake. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Heather-mills-500x703.jpg

File:Heather-mills-500x703.jpg Hi, please read the 'fair use rationale' section. I think that you will agree this should allow use of the image. Thanks & Merry Christmas Captainclegg (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong guy

Sorry, but I HAVE been uploading my own work. I don't know why you think it is someone else's. I take pictures of my video games and put them on here. YouTubeFan123 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image's don't have source?

You recently posted notices on my talk page that four images I recently uploaded did not have a given source for them. However, they quite explicitly state that they are from digimon channel. If there is any additional problems, then:

1. The images were replacements for others of slightly less fair-use status - the uploaded images are explicitly released for online information on the subjects, while the ones that were there were from the anime, and if any could be considered infringing, were more so.
2. The images state the article they are used in.
3. The images are necessary to illustrate the subject of their article.

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC on College Football logos

As the NFCC talk page was becoming difficult to navigate, I have moved the RFC to a subpage at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. If you had the talkpage watchlisted, you may wish to add the subpage also. Best, Black Kite 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Helmet section

At Texas Longhorns football#Helmets, I fleshed out the image descriptions, removed two of them, and put all in a thumbnail format. I hope this now works for you.--2008Olympian 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My userboxes

Yeah, actually. I was trying my hand at pixel-art to use for avatars and stuff. I started off with super pixely stuff, but then over time I added more detail. It took me about six months of tinkering off-and-on in photoshop, and I was pretty happy with the result. And the reason they're so small on here is that I had to upload a small image size to put into my userboxes. Rwiggum (/_Contrib) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? That sucks. Well, thanks for letting me know. I'll replace them with something soon and put the images up for speedy deletion. Rwiggum (/_Contrib) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use

How do you add a fair use to an image? TwinTitans (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Men images

I got a few deletion notices for these. I didn't see much discussion about the images so I will let them get deleted. I have not worked on that project in a while so I am assuming the consensus is to let them go unless you know anyone that wanted them retained. Libro0 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rumble Roses

I've reverted your edits to the Character section of Rumble Roses. You rational behind the edit was ambiguous and quite frankly, very unconvincing. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV can have the pictures, why not Rumble Roses ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As per your request for a 3rd opinion, I have added my thoughts to the talk page Pmbma (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma

Merry Christmas!

Have a great and safe holiday, J! Keep it real, buddy :-) Scarian 12:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's christmas!

Hope you have a merry christmas and a happy new year! :-) JS (chat) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here! :D JS (chat) 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Bali

Did you notice I'm back? ;)

I noticed a few edits such as this and have looked at what the user has uploaded. There are obvious issues, but if the user's assertion is true, then they can all probably be sorted. I live about a half km from Museum Puri Lukisan. It's a respectable place, unlike a lot of the commercial galleries posing as museums here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dustbin Baby (film)

On 26 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dustbin Baby (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Three Little Birds (Connie Talbot song)

Hello J Milburn.

I was reviewing the article as you listed it at WP:GAN. However, I concur with the tradition of including information about cover versions within the article on the original version. This is used even when the cover version is more well known, eg. I Will Always Love You. I'm aware this issue was brought up in the previous GA review.

The article is well-written and I don't like to fail it, but I think you will have to merge it with the parent article, Three Little Birds. Would you prefer to withdraw from GAN rather than have me fail it?

-- _{Escape Artist Swyer Contributions} 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV

See also recent edits to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and its talkpage. Black Kite 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

File:Startv old.jpg should lead you to the issue SatuSuro 04:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine - from where you come from if that looks that way - fair enough - as a wikibreaked indonesian reviewer of the whole indonesian project I have serious doubts about most contributions - and will pursue it further along other channels - am trying to keep the break a bit longer, but might be drawn out by some really concerning issues in the Indonesian project. IMHO the user in qeustion has never responded to one item at talk - continues to create articles that have lists of things that have no order or reason - and has created a vast non-WP:RS corpus that is a prime candidates for WP:NOT, frequently has nonsensical non english expressions - and shows no interest in WP conventions. But hey - I was trying to stay off for another week! have a good new year. SatuSuro 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am dreading getting back into the indonesian project cleanup - I might just pull my head in for another week or two - its enough to make me change name and identity when I see the issues that need to be dealt with (my current user name means javanese new year - I think i should change it to the javanese words for chaos of midnight) - more likely to strike mirth in my indonesian javanese friends :( - cheers and happy new year anyways - SatuSuro 11:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Vatican Railway Images

Hi,

You tagged two images I have just scanned and uploaded: Vatican Railway Gate.jpg and Vatican Railway Bridge.jpg

The original work is out of copyright being anonymous and more than seventy years old. The are both scanned from a 1934 copy of The Railway Magazine which I own. A scan of the original arrtical is avilable online here. This information is included in the summary of both files.

Please could you indicate what further information is required so show that these works are now in the public domain. Best regards Oxonhutch (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the tag with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as the original images were published anonymously in the UK (EU) more than 70 years ago. Oxonhutch (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

What exactly is the problem with these clearly-marked, low resolution, much-reduced images of characters from a rare television show? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S# :) 11:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case its ommission would be detrimental in that the relevant information is not available. This award-winning TV show has not been expanded sufficiently to cover them yet and these images are not even available online so they could almost be claimed as recent historic non-free images. They are at the absolute lowest resolution possible to view them at. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S# :) 11:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I was in the process of expanding it as you swiped them away actually. :/ --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S# :) 12:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Hi Milburn. This is with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/File:UM_Season_II.jpg. I accidentally uploaded the image UM_Season_II.jpg under the wrong copyright tag, and have since uploaded a corresponding one with the appropriate copyright tag as i had no idea how to change it. Please delete the image file if possible. Apologies about it. Yuanshangcao (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Rumble_Roses_Mud_Wrestling.JPG

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Rumble_Roses_Mud_Wrestling.JPG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Roaring Siren (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Black metal

I was wondering if you would like to sit down one day, along with myself, and bring the black metal article to FA class. It shouldn't be too bad nor hard. All the sources already exist and there are plenty of sound samples on the Finnish article. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

PhthinosuchusZICA

The image came from wikipedia, so I didn't know what to put, and just so you know, I try to make sure it is all legit, as I know what trouble copyrighting get you into Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 16:21, 31 December 200

I don't know the author, also the image was not on a website, I had saved the image into my pictures and figured it was easier to upload than trying to find the website, I know that may be copyright, but I didn't say it was my pic and I wasn't intending to upload it, the previous images was PhtinosuchusZICA, Phtinosuchus is not Phthinosuchus so I wanted it to be correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem, I don't know the first person to put the image on wikipedia, so I can only say the author is Misplaced Pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Peiper photo

Hi,

I have a question to ask about the correct procedures when a person changes images in threads. I have long worked on various military articles on Misplaced Pages. I also supplied many of them with images and assisted with my help. Recently, I have been having a problem with a member talk who is repeatedly changing an image in an article on Joachim Peiper . What shall I do? Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!! Although I disagree with your characterization of my behavior, I believe that this issue can be easily resolved. As you can see I asked the talk for his reasons for removing my image and his answer was unsatisfactory. Once again I welcome your help and I am sure solution will be found. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but it appears that User:Mariaflores1955 has viewed the recent protection of the Peiper page with her photo as a nod in her favour for the mass removal of arguably "better" portrait images from the German archives for her own images from the outdated and faded Hoffman collection. She has went around at least 5 pages and reverted all the images, despite receiving a 3RR warnning from mylself and an admin. She is also now using either a proxy, a different internet connection or her own personal army to affect further reverts without being accused of 3RR. That is a serious manipulative offense, could you please look into this? Here are the recent reverts from some anomolous 3rd party: . Koalorka (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did not realized how many images User:Koalorka changed. It is not only the above article but many others (Erich von Manstein, Johannes Blaskowitz, Georg von Küchler, Sepp Dietrich). These images were not placed in the articles solely by me, but also by other contributors. I do not understand why he thinks that File:Sepp.jpg is inferior to File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J06632, Sepp Dietrich.jpg... I think that some of the articles, where images were missing benefited from his contributions, but replacing images for no reason is silly. In addition his comments such as "You little troll" etc. should not be tolerated (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erich_von_Manstein&diff=261155921&oldid=261155503). I was willing to communicate with User:Koalorka, but his behavior is more and more insulting.Mariaflores1955 (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: As for the IP address: My log in timed out and therefore the last edit was done under IP 81.152.206.4 --- for that I apologize.

You and your "comrades" are currently being reviewed for sock or meat puppetry. I will send you a link to the report shortly, please stand by. This has nothing to do with the quality of the images, I seem to have infuriated you and your numerous sock accounts for removing YOUR images. Koalorka (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I just left a statement on the page where Koalorka accused me of sock or meat puppetry. These accusations are absolutely preposterous, but it seems that he found unlikely ally in another administrator, who made up his mind before hearing my side of the story. I do not want to impose on you, I am sure that by now you are tired of this ridiculous affair (I know I am), but I would like to see what my cause of action should be. It seems like some administrators manage this amazing learning tool in very authoritarian way (without really examining the evidence - innocent until proven guilty)... Anyway, any suggestions will be welcomed. Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images and toys

I'm not sure if you are aware, but there was a big debate on images of toys and their free-ness, and it was decided that any picture taken of a toy (even one you own) is not a free because it's derivitive of a "sculpture". That's why even pictures I take of my own toys are listed as non-free, instead of me making them free. Now with Transformers articles, sometimesa multiple characters from different years share a name, so like on Rollbar we have 4 different characters in one article. Each justifies a picture, so... lots of non-free pictures. Sorry about that. Mathewignash (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point that you can't put a picture of every character on a "list of characters page". Still on a page like Rollbar, I could have made each of the four seperate characters have a page, then each have one imageto depict them. For consolidation of material, I put them all on one page, and therefore each got a photo. Part of the purpose of these photos is to illustrate how each of the four is a seperate non-alive character, since they don't look a thing alike. I suppose if someone wants to suggest a better alternative on the talk page I'd like to hear it though. Thanks for the essay link, it's interesting. Mathewignash (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ali-Moeen-Writer2.jpg

Hi! Thank you for your concern about copyrights. I also take copyright matters very seriously and have no intention to violate any. If this has happened unintentionally, I shall follow whatever steps you advise to clear any doubts concerning the sources of the images I upload and the articles I contribute. I've uploaded the subject image and other related images directly from my computer. I assure you they were emailed to me by Ali Moeen himself. I would appreciate your guidance as to how to tag them appropriately as I am new to editing on Misplaced Pages, and if permission from the living person (Mr. Ali Moeen) who is the subject of the article linking to the images, and who emailed me those images personally, is required, how and where to email it, so I can fix this problem asap. Thanks very much and Happy New Year. --Crimson67 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Re:Infoboxes

(You wrote)
Using an infobox like that is just plain misleading, as it implies the article is about that book. I can understand why you may want an infobox about the book, but if you are going to have that, you're certainly going to have to have an infobox about the author as well. I'm also a little concerned about the use of the image- the cover is not discussed, and you can't really justify its use for identification, as the article is about the author, not the book. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• For me, the actual book (including quite informative cover image) is the real justification for the article, because without that book the person might not have been notable by our standards. I noticed similar use of multiple templates especially in articles about Eastern European history, where many boxes are used at the same time. My understanding is that {{infobox book}} is just a useful template allowing for quick referencing and if we don't put it at the top of the page, but at the section title, it ceased to be misleading. As such, all infoboxes are design to provide most readily available data. --Poeticbent talk 20:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with including the infoboxes in a section devoted to the book. However, I do have an issue with including the images of the covers. Unless the covers themselves are in some way significant (and therefore discussed in the article text) then they should not be used per point 8 of the non-free content criteria. In an article about the book specifically, we get around this by using the images to identify the article subject in a way that a free image never could, but, in these articles, the author is the subject, not the book. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed what you did here and here. I guess I'm going to have to learn to live with that. I'm a visual person, so the images meant a lot to me. --Poeticbent talk 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I do appreciate what you mean, and I understand that articles often look a lot worse without the images, but we have the non-free content guidelines for a good reason. It may be worth emailing the authors and asking them if they are willing to release an image of themselves under a free license (not just permission for Misplaced Pages use). If you do do that, upload the images and tag them with {{OTRS pending}} then forward the email to the OTRS address, along with a link to where you have uploaded the images. That way, the permission is stored. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I might do that one of these days, since I've done it already. It's a lot of unjustifiable effort though, with people I don't know. Thanks anyway. --Poeticbent talk 20:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Message left on my talk page

Re:Message left on my talk page J Milburn wrote: "If the copyright holder of the images has sent you them with permission to release them under a certain license, then that is fine- just forward the email to the address given here along with the URL of the images hosted on Misplaced Pages, then add {{OTRS pending}} to each of the images. If permission was only given to upload the images to Misplaced Pages, please contact the subject again, and ask them if they are willing to release the images under a free license (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 is a good one) and, once you have the email, follow the procedure above. Good luck, and thanks for understanding the situation and doing your best to deal with it. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC"

Hi! Thanks for your helpful guidance. I have forwarded the original image with its source permission as directed. Regards, --Crimson67 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

re: image Ali-Moeen-Writer2.jpg

Apologies! I stand corrected. the image in discussion is Ali-Moeen-Writer4.jpg and not Ali-Moeen-Writer2.jpg. This is with reference to article http://en.wikipedia.org/Ali_Moeen. Thanks. --Crimson67 (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

reply

Hi :-) There's a reply regarding Red Cliffs here. I'm dropping you a line on your talk because I might edit that talk page further, removing that edit summary from your watchlist... later! Ling.Nut 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

reply Ling.Nut 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

objection

excuse me mister I'm working on electrophysiology article and discover that you delete my image as soon i upload it. would you please stop doing it. Thank youRvfrolov (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 —  23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 —  00:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested

Your input is requested. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi Milburn. I dont know if you are the right person to ask, but Iam going to give it a go. Ive revamed the WikiProject Political parties Userbox. Ive added the noinclude tags, but WikiProject Political parties still comes up on the Category:WikiProject Political parties memebrs (Ive requested a rename). Can you please help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapsnot (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Queen of Swords

My fair use rationale I have added was that it was wallpaper freely available from the defunct Queen of Swords website. I used the poster copyright as nothing else came close.REVUpminster (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added more info. Copyright for this picture difficult to determine as the programme was a multinational/multicompay production. The original website was owned by Fireworks Entertainment. What more can I do??REVUpminster (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had another go, please look.REVUpminster (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou but as for being decorative, it is the only pictiure of the seven cast members together. I did make it a bit bigger so you could see the faces more clearly but it interfered with the next section spoiling the look of that section. I have been expanding this article over the last few months, I am new to editing, as I have become quite an expert on the articleREVUpminster (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Godwin Cyclist

You contacted me about two pictures I uploaded on this entry as not having source. I uploaded them and ticked to release them into the public domain. What else do you need? 'scuse me, I'm a bit puzzled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithpoole (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a student learning exercise you should not "assume". I tagged the images as taken by myself because they were scanned by myself from prints supplied to me for that purpose by Barbara Ford, the daughter of Tommy Godwin. Also answering the right question is a useful skill. I was aware that possibly I had needed to provide some further proof of ownership and was asking what was required as the procedure is quite opaque. I see from your discussion forum here that I am not alone in this view. I can certainly appreciate the copyright issues and am happy to do anything reasonable. However, if it gets too heavyweight then people will not bother. Perhaps you can please advise me what I need to do to ensure the pictures stay put? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithpoole (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current Australian COTF

Before you revert my reversion, I suggest you read Misplaced Pages talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight#ACOTF template. It is late here AEDT so I heading to bed but I am willing to discuss the matter with you further tomorrow. -- Mattinbgn\ 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If we keep going like this we will be in 3RR country pretty soon. Why don't we have the discussion and see where it leads before making unilateral changes. -- Mattinbgn\ 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replied. A little patience please, I have just got out of bed. -- Mattinbgn\

Table Background

Hi Milburn. I once again need your help. Ive put all my Userboxes in a table, and then I've nested this table into another cell. My only problem now is, there is pieces of white between the first tables cells. I've looked in the Table Help file, but I couldn't figure it out. Ive even look at table background colour stuff. Slapsnot (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Begins tomorrow! at 0:00 (UTC) Some quick reminders and amendments This year a bot will be tallying the scores for the tournament. This bot will be run by ST47 and will count edits–at 0.1 points each (major edits only, see below)–and submissions at the scores listed in the tables. You must submit any work that you manage to promote in each period on your submissions page. Your page is located here. Rules and instructions are here for submitting. Due to the massive influx of Huggle users, and because this is a content contest rather than an editcountitis extravaganza, minor edits will be scored at only 0.01 points. If you are a Huggle user your edits must be marked as minor or you will be disqualified. If you are unsure, check your contributions. If you wish to drop out before the tournament begins, please do so as soon as possible, but not later than January 5. Most importantly, good luck! Happy New Years, Garden. and ayematthew 16 08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer

The proposal might be a bit premature, but I think it will also work. It doesn't preclude other discussions either and gives people something to think about with regards to phrasing... — BQZip01 —  22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image resolution issues

I've noticed the tag that has been placed on the album cover I uploaded for Big Sky. This surprised me, since I've uploaded nearly a hundred covers over the course of six months, all at 400x400 / 72dpi, without any issues. As far as I can tell, they perfectly fit the requirement for being composed of a resolution lower than that of the original material; they are mostly blurred to reduce the effective sharpness of the images, and if one compares their physical size to that of the originals, anyone attempting to use them for counterfeit copies would not be able to convince true collectors of CDs. Also, the pages for Images and Words and Awake, for example, have covers that are scanned at a far greater resolution than mine—and they've been untouched for well over a year. Mac dreamstate (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate covers

My apologies for mis-spelling your name. Thanks for fixing it. I can only offer that I was on dial-up and somebody needed the phone.

Thanks also for notifying Peripitus for me. It would have been nice, also, if he had notified the wiki-project himself of the images he was planning to take a hatchet to en masse. I can't say that I agree with your position, but I do agree this should have been discussed right from the start with the relevant wiki-project to first identify issues and ground-rules, rather than going at it like a bull in a china shop at IfD.

I stand by what I wrote about the complete inappropriateness of trying to get deletions through under the radar by using {{dnfcc}}, deliberately to avoid public view and public discussion. Anyone who thinks that is the right way to go about things should think long and hard about whether they still have the judgment required of an admin. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to use CSD when a deletion is non controversial - that's what CSD is for. But to go "under the radar" if one is fully aware that what one is doing is pushing the envelope -- that stinks. Jheald (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject opposition

Thanks for the heads up - I saw it coming after this post. I do wish people would read and act on the dispute resolution policy from the start—would also drop the size of AN and AN/I markedly - Peripitus (Talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant Wood

Thanks for your input on the talk page there. It is useful for the arts editors to have input on how this issue is being seen by others. I would certainly appreciate your drawing attention on the talk page of WP:WPVA if you come across any visual arts articles with FU problems, so that these can be resolved collegiately. Obviously time is needed to work through such things. Ty 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have watchlisted this, but in case you missed it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Grant_Wood. Ty 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One Fair Use Image

Would it be more appropiate to use one fair use image in this article? I am able to create one image including all of the major characters. Would this be acceptable, or would it just be removed again? JayJ47 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:PKR-100px.png

I don't think the mentioned images has a sufficient non-free rationale, but it is used in an article. Did you mis-tag it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round I, Issue II - January 18, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Gary King has had 2 successful featured article nominations. Featured lists Scorpion0422 has had 1 successful featured list nomination. Featured topics No participants have had a successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 8 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday, X!, and Durova have all had 1 successful featured sound nomination. Featured portals Sunderland06 Good topics No participants have had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Catalan and Juliancolton have both had 4 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Candlewicke has had 21 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Spencer has had 4 successful "In the news" nomination. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LW TW D 1 Durova 144 320 176 2 Candlewicke 60 194 134 3 Shoemaker's Holiday 1 112 111 4 Gary King 86 191 105 5 Juliancolton 133 230 97 6 Sasata 10 92 82 7 Theleftorium 121 197 76 8 Spencer 67 135 68 8 97198 11 79 68 10 Sunderland06 46 104 58 LW = Last Week's score, TW = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at User:Garden/WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges Wow, you guys are racking up the DYK's fast! Good articles are also coming in quite quickly, and we also have a few new Featured articles. This is coming along great so far; we're glad to see almost everyone working on something. Also, Thehelpfulone is our newest judge. He will, starting Monday, be helping maintain the WikiCup and help us ensure all runs smoothly. It's hard to gain consensus between two editors, so I guess "majority rules" (with three people) will start to apply while we make our decision. :-P Keep it up! Garden., iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of: 4 Featured articles 1 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 12 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 1 Featured portals 0 Good topics 24 Good articles 58 Did you know? items 4 In the news items Current leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Catalan, Gary King (191) Spencer (127) Pool B Shoemaker's Holiday (112) Sceptre (34) Spittlespat (9) Pool C Candlewicke (182) Scorpion0422 (72) Steven Walling (16) Pool D 97198 (79) NapHit (29) ThinkBlue (25) Pool E Sasata (91) X! (69) Straight Edge PXK (6) Pool F Bedford (55) RyanCross (31) the_ed17 (24) Pool G Sunderland06 (104) Ceranthor (34) Skinny87 (17) Pool H Juliancolton (230) Tinucherian (64) Ottava Rima (28) Pool I Durova (319) Theleftorium (196) J Milburn (65) Pool J Climie.ca (101) Paxse (97) Useight (81) All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

DYK for Lactarius volemus

On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius volemus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius glyciosmus

On January 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius glyciosmus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chaos in Flesh

Hey, I replied to you back on my user talk page. I am not sure if you get a notification on such a reply, or am I supposed to post on your talk page, so I am letting you know. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Crossing the line

I base my arguments on my experiences with those who haunt WP:NFC. I see a cabal of editors who interpret that policy in an overly restrictive manner and state that their interpretation is exempt from any consensus to the contrary. This condescension as to the inclusion of images is to what I am reacting. When editors make up rules that are not in the policy, such as minimal use refers to the entire encyclopedia, and that the image must be discussed with sources in the text, then yes it is a problem and I spoke out against it. It would be better if editors could spend their time doing more article creation instead of trying to defend their images.--2008Olympian 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was directly related to the issue of the alternate album covers. I gave specific directions on how the members of that project could address those who have an overly restrictive view of WP:NFC. You have no right to remove that.--2008Olympian 07:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggity Giggity!--2008Olympian 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

album types

Please take a look at Template:Infobox Album. The template only handles very specific words, and all other words cause the album to land in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. This is in the Category:Album articles needing attention, which means the members of the community have decided that albums with non-standard infobox types do need to be fixed. "Holiday album" isn't a "Type", it's a subject matter, and such subject matters haven't been given the coding in the infobox. If you have a desire to take about this further, a great place to take the discussion is Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums. I hope that helps, J.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. I'm fixing all the albums in that category, so if something changes, some of them can be put back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use Teapot Dome scandal photos

Hi, Bill here: I need guidance. I was uncertain how to approach the download and under what terms I might claim fair use. These are historical photos of 35mm B&W photos taken by me from the journals Oil Weekly, March 22, 1924 and from Literary Digest Feb 9, 1924. Both were used by me in a college paper written in March 1969. If you believe, based on these descriptions, that these have fair use pls let me know how to proceed. Pls respond on my page. Thanks, BillWvbailey (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Teapot Dome article I discuss how these came about. I just returned from Casper Wyo yesterday but didn't have time to go up there and find it (plus didn't have the maps, bad weather and time of year, other hazards, etc etc). Next time I get a chance I'll go out there in the pucker-brush and get a photo (given the damn rock is still there . . .). Is there anything we can do about the copyright? I have a shitload of other photos, but all are from 1924. Any other thoughts? I'll probably have to wait a year or so and then put them in, otherwise. If you feel they have to go, I respect your decision. BillWvbailey (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I go about removing the images? Otherwise, go ahead and remove them and I'll re-download when I've resolved the issue. Thanks . . . this is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back like the bad penny. I've contacted both the owners of "Oil Weekly" (Gulf Publishing Company) and "Literary Digest" (Reader's Digest (!)) ; the Oil Weekly fellow said he'd send an e-mail giving me release of the images. I should have asked you first: what exactly constitutes a sufficient "proof of release" as far as wikipedia is concerned, and how/where do I submit it? Will the email be sufficient? But where/to whom should it go? Lemme know, thanks, Bill

ID images

While I'm sure that you feel impatient about this, I'm also sure that you know better than to edit war to get your way rather than presenting detailed and persuasive discussion on the article talk page in relation to article consensus with regard to what is clearly a difference of opinion about inclusion rationale that has already been tested and subject to detailed consideration. Given that editors have limited time and disruption interferes with other commitments, a more measured approach to reaching agreement will be welcome. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave's advice is sage. Try discussing things instead of edit-warring. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again - try discussion instead of edit-warring. There was a clear consensus to include them. Simply saying IDONTLIKEIT does not create an absence of consensus. Not to mention that you're obviously not an independent observer, and are in no way in a position to judge consensus or a lack thereof. Stop. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. You are edit-warring, even after you have been warned. I was simply undoing your disruption. In my opinion, undoing an edit by someone who is acting disruptively isn't edit-warring. You are free to disagree. But regardless of what you think of me as a messenger, you're still being disruptive. So stop. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn, your response is, quite frankly, disappointing and a time-waster. At the least I'd hope that you'd reconsider your approach with the aim of acting in a more collegiate and less peremptory way. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am involved in the discussion, far more heavily than you are - please familiarise yourself with the way we do things here. Repeatedly saying IDONTLIKEIT does not allow you to be disruptive. Anyway, even if you just care about word count, I'm sure I'm far ahead of you. You have read the archives, right? You realise that this has been discussed and settled, right?
• I have not edited the main article since you did, so there was no need for any kind of additional warning. - You complained that you didn't have to listen to my warning because I had reverted your edits. I simply re-iterated that you're still bound by the rules, no matter what you think of the messenger.
• I am not saying that I don't like it- I am saying that there is no consensus to keep the images. Umm, no. Your argument for removing the images is IDONTLIKEIT. You are then using that argument as proof of a lack of consensus. You are so worked up about this issue that you are willing to edit war over it, instead of bothering to address the substantive issues, suggests that you do need additional warnings.
• If you believe there is, we have a very different definition of consensus. Obviously. I'm using the one we have developed here at Misplaced Pages over the last 4 years.
• In stating that the images appear to meet our policy, you are the one who is effectively ignoring the discussion and instead deciding what is best for the article - Nope. Sorry. Several reviews have concluded that the images meet our policy. That may change. But you really aren't in a position to decide that. You are far from neutral on the matter. Which is fine. But don't pretend otherwise.
• Do you honestly believe that there is a current consensus for the images to be retained? Yes.
• simply stating that I am being disruptive does not make it so. True. Edit-warring to short-circuit a discussion makes it so.
• Also, I do not appreciate this whole "warning" thing - then don't behave in a manner than warrants it.
• I have been an administrator for over a year; I know the ropes - If you're an admin, then your disruption is even more egregious. If you know the rope, then start acting like a member of a community. Your behaviour would be more acceptable in a newbie.
• If you are going to undo my edits, the least you can do is answer a few questions. Do you honestly believe there to be a consensus for retaining the images?

  Consensus is not achieved through voting. Consensus is not achieved through shouting matches. Consensus is not achieved through grandstanding. Nor is it undone by any of these. The issue of images in this article has been subject to discussion on more than one occasion. Discussion that was sometimes heated. But in the end, consensus was achieved.

  Consensus is not undone in a couple days simply because a few new people disagree. Most of the interested editors have not weighed in. I haven't seen anything that needed input. Dave and Kensosis seem to have addressed the issues. It looked pretty good when I weighed in with a comment, which was basically to say "there's no fire". What do you suggest has changed since then? What has changed that warrants this sort of "hair on fire" edit-warring?

  There's a discussion. Let it run its course. Trying to short-circuit a discussion is disruptive. It raises the temperature needlessly. Just don't do it. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say my judgement was more or less objective than your own. I wouldn't want to be the one to judge a change, one way or the other. Anyway, I'm mentally exhausted. No more arguing for me for today...there's only so much I have energy for these days, and this is all I have to put into pointless wiki-fights about nothing. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested again

Your input is requested again, at User_talk:Hammersoft#Time_for_the_next_step. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mushrooms...

Good work on all the lactarius spp. I think I need ot take the plunge and get Amanita muscaria to GA and later FAC sometime soonish. I am just getting some more info on the whole Soma thing, but otherwise please feel free to give it a once- (or twice-over). I suppose this is an informal fungus peer-review (?) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The species must have been from the Index Fungorum http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/names.asp?strGenus=Lactarius - the reference is right up at Basidiomycota level. It was an isolated effort to establish the Lactarius (Russulaceae) page with a name to distinguish it from Lactarius (Lactariidae) in the Animalia.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)

I've left two issues on the GA review open. I rewrote bits myself. Please review to see if you agree. As long as the suicide was explored and not randomly thrown in, the category is no problem. I'm moving on to the references. - Mgm| 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The play.com reference doesn't mention the release date. Where did that come from? If it does come from that reference, you can just use one reference at the end of the paragraph. Also, any idea as to why a BBC film would be released by ITV DVD?- Mgm| 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• P.S. What is up with the second entry at User:J Milburn/Recognised content. You don't seem to mention a title there. - Mgm| 11:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Misplaced Pages Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

1. WMF approval and chapter formation process
2. New website
3. Annual General Meeting
4. Misplaced Pages Loves Art
5. Oxford Wikimania bid
6. Meet-ups

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hi J Milburn. Good news! I have just promoted Dustbin Baby (film) to GA status. :) - Mgm| 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re this post

This is in violation of WP:NPA, especially the closing line.

Being an admin does not change the general principles of behaviour, and you should be working with editors, not fighting with them. Barging in with attitude a-blazing isn't going to help WP. •Jim62sch• 13:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)