User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question on images

Hi, my GAN for Junya Nakano failed today partly due to lack of images. I was wondering if it would be okay to upload a fair use image of this person as I haven't found a free use version yet. I was also considering using this image since it shows him and the other two composers of Final Fantasy X, which is discussed in the article and is his most famous work. What do you think? The Prince (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll leave the article as it is. The Prince (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

just fyi...

A Counter-proposal (September 26) is being discussed at DC 8 (talk).
--NBahn (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LexisNexis

Hi, about 10 months ago you sent me a message regarding sources you found on the "House's Head" article, I believe I replied but never received them. It didn't really bother me that much since I was moving on to edit other articles, but now I would like to try for FAc again soon and wondered if you could still send them to me. Also, at a current FLC for Seinfeld (season 2) I was asked to add reviews, I couldn't find much, but Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) told me you had access to LexisNexis (then I remembered the whole "House's Head" thing), so there you have the reason I wrote you this message. Anyways, I hope I'm not bothering you, if you think it's to much work don't bother, if not my e-mail adress is pietjepuk93@live.nl. Thanks.--Music26/11 16:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are any critics who reviewed the full second season that would be great, and maybe some reviews of the season premiere and season finale. Thanks.--Music26/11 10:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hi David. You opposed my RfA back in June because of concerns about my AfD participation and my comments during the DougsTech debates. I'm trying to get as much input as possible to determine how I've been doing since my RfA and if I'll be ready for another one in a few months. If you had the time, I was wondering if you'd mind giving me an editor review, focusing most heavily on how (and if) I've improved in the areas you were most concerned about during my RfA. Thanks. Timmeh (review me) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars II peer review

I just realized, I've fixed all the issues you brought up on Lego Star Wars II's peer review. If I nominated it at FAC, would you support it? Tezkag72 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC and article size query

Sorry to bug ya, but I'm putting MissingNo. through a Peer Review at the moment and working to try and bring it before FAC, but something bugs me: the size. It's not that the article's short on information as it's stripmined all available info in reliable sources, but I'm worried a reviewer might shoot it down based solely on article size (despite there being nothing else to say). What do you think?

Also while I'm here I changed the image in Rufus (Street Fighter) to artwork of his initial design. Does it fit fair-use standards better now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Assassin (band)

Hi, David, can you please confirm that the OTRS permission for this article is valid. It appears the author has added the tag to the talk page without following the correct process. Thank you and my best to you... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Halo: Reach

Can you please check the talk section of Halo: Reach? I'm confused about the fifth or sixth thing, because I didn't get a clear answer from your debate.

Thanks, Spartan S58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

PSP GAR

I'll look it over tonight and hopefully tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Starcraft free.png

File:Starcraft free.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Starcraft free.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Starcraft free.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

clean up links

Hey David:

These changes were made recently to this biography which seem unwarranted given that they are mostly from another article more relevant to the topic. Also, there are several Cite Errors on this. Any chance you could have a look?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Ledonne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephjclark (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-Free SVGS.

No, they are not against policies. If they were, they would be not allowed on Wikipedia, and other companies would not have them in their articles. Connormah (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's only on Wikipedia because a bunch of people like yourself don't understand WP:NFCC. SVGs are not low resolution images as required by our image policy for nonfree content. Furthermore I don't appreciate people who don't do jack to actually develop articles enforcing their own styles on them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if they were not allowed, then please be kind to explain why many other articles, such as Detroit Red Wings, IGA, Verizon, Telus, and Intuit all have non-free SVGs in them, and why they've not been deleted. They are allowed. Nothing in the policy states that non-free SVGs are not allowed, and there are a couple templates for non-free SVGs, such as Template:SVG-Trademark. --Connormah (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
either way, you are not a significant contributor to this article. please go away and plaster your SVGs elsewhere, if you will --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [Bungie edit summary]
Excuse me, will you just let it go? The reason for you reverting the last edit by me, I think is TOTALLY un-neccessary, un-civil & rude. I don't care if I'm not a significant contributer to the article, and it should not matter. Wikipedia is open for ANYONE to edit, regardless of their contributions. I am trying to help make the article better, yet you are being just overprotective of the article. JUST LET IT GO. Connormah (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat my statements; go away, and learn how to properly license images. It's rather sad when applying boilerplate templates you can't even select the proper one. I'm done discussing this with you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, come on. IT IS LICENSED PROPERLY. That is how all other SVG logos are licensed, and, do you know what? Noone else seems to have problems with them, so ewhy are you fussing? Connormah (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You are spouting only one user here. You should spout everyone about it. You have been here long enough to understand about rejection and civility. ZooFari 21:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, David, the image description appears to contain a proper rationale. To what are you referring?
You ignored my earlier message and proceeded to engage in a full-scale edit war. Your edit summaries ("either way, you are not a significant contributor to this article. please go away and plaster your SVGs elsewhere, if you will," "good for you." and "whoop de do") and reiteration to "go away" are uncivil and demonstrate a textbook case of attempted ownership.
I don't particularly care which version of the logo is used, but Connormah has as much right as anyone to edit the article. You have no authority to bar someone's good-faith contributions on the grounds that they haven't earned the right to make them, let alone based on an interpretation of policy that you know lacks consensus. —David Levy 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As you doubtlessly are well aware, there is significant disagreement regarding how to apply the concept of resolution to an image format that inherently lacks a finite resolution. Citing this disagreement as evidence that your opponents "don't understand" is rather rude, as is the claim they "don't do jack to actually develop articles."
There is no consensus that non-free SVGs are prohibited by policy. For you to perform edits such as this and this (unilaterally enforcing your non-consensus interpretation of WP:NFCC) and then claim that those who revert are "enforcing their own styles" is quite troubling. —David Levy 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there some discussion where people came to a consensus that SVG images were barred by the NFCC. I can see the arguments that david is making but I could also see SVG as 'resolution free' with respect to our guidelines. SVGs are very literally a set of instructions for a render engine. They may output something of a high resolution (or fidelity, whatever our concern is) but they aren't exactly 'high resolution'. And I'm not sure generally that the 'competing interest' portion of our policy demands the same actions for logos as they do photographs (where the display of the photo itself is possibly in competition with the rights holder). Can someone send me a pointer to a past discussion? Protonk (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion here which then went to this page. In fact, David participated in the discussion, but no consensus was met and David yet continued his complaints. ZooFari 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you, David are sour over this matter, but I dislike the way you are puppy-guarding the article. As I have stated previously, I am trying to help out, and improve the article by adding a vector image. I find it totally unneccessary for you to make comments such as 'either way, you are not a significant contributor to this article. please go away and plaster your SVGs elsewhere' and ' I don't appreciate people who don't do jack to actually develop articles, especially coming from an administrator. --Connormah (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tone it down. A lot of charges can be leveled against admins, but I think that David develops far more articles than you or I. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That is very true, but I do not appreciate the comments made by him. --Connormah (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That may be so, but it doesn't give David the right to unilaterally dictate policy, revert-war to enforce it, and repeatedly demand that a good-faith contributor with whom he disagrees "go away." I'm surprised to see you advising Connormah to "tone it down," as his/her reaction to David's incivility has been rather mild. —David Levy 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Argh, why must you guys crosspost everything! I try and save kB by leaving points on other pages, but whatever. Yes, there hasn't been clear consensus about nonfree SVGs, but there's never been a good discussion about it period. I contacted a couple of people who are "pro-SVG", if you will, trying to get an RfC drafted, but so far there's been no response... the page I had in mind was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free SVGs, so if anyone wants to do that I'd be obliged. My point is I'm not trying to enforce my view on every page out there, otherwise I'd waste my days nominating files for deletion and wasting time I'd rather be building articles. But I do maintain certain standards on articles that I am heavily involved in, including Bungie, and just like any group of significant contributors has right to be irked if someone drives by and changes BrEng to AmEnglish or vice versa, I feel I have every right to maintain a lower-quality PNG version if Connor's only contributions to an article are to make such image changes to conform to his opinion. (And by the way we should really burn those crap boilerplate FUR template tabs with fire as they are utterly worthless, but that's another point altogether.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, please see WP:OWN. A user who builds an article from scratch has no more authority to dictate its content than does a user who has never edited it before.
It's reasonable to argue that a raster image should be used, but this should be done on the article's talk page. Both of you are guilty of edit-warring, but your involvement is far more problematic (as you've been extremely uncivil, deliberately made misleading claims about "policy" enforcement, and repeatedly told Connormah that he/she has no say and should "go away"). Please stop. —David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you read any of the discussion above? Why must you be so stubborn over the article? You do not own it. Please let it go. Connormah (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
David: I see that you reverted without explanation.
Connormah just came to my talk page to ask me what to do about your conduct. I'm giving you one opportunity to respond (and rethink your approach) before I advise Connormah on how to proceed. —David Levy 04:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't acquiesce to ultimatums. If he doesn't check the talk page and goes off to whine the first opportunity, I can't be bothered with him. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To what "ultimatums" are you referring? I'm extending the courtesy of coming to you instead of directing Connormah elsewhere (in the hope that this dispute can be resolved amicably), and you appear to be responding with additional incivility toward Connormah ("...goes off to whine...").
It's unfortunate that no one has responded to your Talk:Bungie post, but we already know Connormah's position. Outside feedback is needed, and I suggest that you initiate a request for comment. —David Levy 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't need an RfC. Connor refuses to discuss, I will continue to revert him. He needs to either respond or go away. Other people are trying to improve the encyclopedia. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
1. What sort of talk page response from Connormah do you believe would meaningfully contribute to the dispute resolution process? In other words, what do you expect apart from the disagreement that Connormah already has expressed?
2. Why do you not wish to solicit input from editors uninvolved in the conflict? To me, this seems like the only potential talk page activity that might actually be of value.
3. I'll ask you again to please be civil. Comments along the lines of "other people are trying to improve the encyclopedia" (implying that Connormah has some other objective) only serve to inflame. —David Levy 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, you don't own the article. I, myself am trying to improve the page, which you cannot accept to. It seems that you want the page 'your' way, and I do not think that is right. It's just an image, why are you fussing so much? Also, no, there is not much to discuss, I feel I have expressed myself fully already, and with your uncivilty in some comments, I will refrain from doing so. --Connormah (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What is to discuss further, meaningfully? I have already expressed myself in this matter. That does not mean I'm letting it go, though. I do not appreciate the incivilty from you. Connormah (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's it. I am tired of your comments made in incivilty. I am trying to improve it in a meaningful way. You do not own it. Just let it go. Connormah (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[following an edit conflict]
It's understandable that Connormah was reluctant to engage in discussion at the article's talk page, given your repeated order to "go away" and statement that you were "done discussing this with [him/her]" (a sentiment that you've now extended to me).
Connormah felt frustrated and requested an administrator's advice on how to proceed. I'm disheartened that you regard this as inappropriate "whining" (as it's part of your job to provide such assistance), but I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised to encounter such a reaction from someone who began this conflict by intentionally misrepresenting policy in an attempt to intimidate a less experienced user.
My initial instinct was to suggest that Connormah report your conduct at WP:AN/I, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt (in the hope that you'd merely had a bad day or two) and seek to resolve the dispute in a low-key, amicable manner. You've responded with further incivility and discourtesy, and I now regret wasting my time.
I've initiated an AN/I thread myself. You are, of course, invited to participate. —David Levy 01:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What does bringing my personal projects into discussion do? Nothing at all. I, like most users are trying to help out, and improve Wikipedia. I don`t care if it`s in a particular matter, or in many matters, but I am giving my best and trying to improve. For you to call me out on just uploading traced logos is completely inexcusable, I`d say. Connormah (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have left a response at Talk:Bungie. Connormah (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

me and connor discussed this and decided on PNG, so. please. stop. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [Bungie edit summary]

1. Connormah acquiesced to your unilateral demand because you refused to stop reverting. The community has decided to use SVG logos, and I still await your explanation of how the Bungie article is a special case. Thus far, your only rationale is that you personally oppose the practice.
2. Do you not care that the current PNG cannot be viewed by some users? You didn't address that at all. —David Levy 00:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I offered to start an RfC if Connor was willing to respond; he suggested the PNG. That's it. In no way did I threaten to revert. As for PNG accessibility, I've never heard of the issue, and considering that IE doesn't support SVG in any concrete form still, I'm not sure that holds any water. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
1. "Threaten to revert"? You actually reverted the insertion of the SVG five times.
2. The community already has discussed the use of non-free SVGs and decided that it should continue. Again, please explain what sets the Bungie article apart.
3. As I noted in my edit summary, the issue is that this particular PNG happens to be stored in an "/ad" subdirectory. As a result, it's mistaken for an advertisement (and blocked) by some software.
I noticed this because I have code in my monobook.css file that places a red border around such images.
4. IE's lack of SVG support is irrelevant; MediaWiki automatically renders SVGs as PNGs. —David Levy 02:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
there. it's not in the ad directory, happy? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [Bungie edit summary]
That addresses my primary concern (accessibility). However, I still await your explanation of what sets the Bungie article apart. Thus far, you've removed the SVG seven times without supplying any justification beyond the fact that you personally oppose the use of non-free SVGs and feel entitled to unilaterally dictate the article's content. —David Levy 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
True. I would like to hear that too. Connormah (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Bungie.net-heatmaps.png)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bungie.net-heatmaps.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:S08-first contact borg queen.png)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:S08-first contact borg queen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices

Hello there! Thanks for agreeing to participate in Wikivoices' FAC review episode. This is just a reminder to let you know that the episode starts in about twenty minutes. I am going to be hosting the call, so could you please add 'NuclearWarfare' to your contact list so that I can add you to the discussion? Thanks. I hope to hear you soon. NW (Talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Image review request

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1; the article has two fair-use images. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you could check out Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Seinfeld (season 2)/archive3 for the fair-use images, that would be great, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you comment at the Desparate Housewives FLC in reply? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FA nom for Quiriguá

Hi David. I've removed the coin pic from the Quiriguá article and I would appreciate it if you could return to the FA nom and respond to my reply. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1

Hi I replied to your post here. Check it out. (SUDUSER)85 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ODST leak

Yes, it is true. It was in a video, showing a French man (guessing by language and accent) opening a box containing Halo 3: ODST. There are now multiple videos, the same one it seems. here is one. Several forum sites (Google testing with "halo 3 odst leak french") mention Microsoft preparing to ban anyone who gets ODST, and then attempts to use LIVE (probably in order to stop them from playing online Firefight). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OsirisV (talk • contribs)

Shoulder

I didn't get that :/ Perhaps explain? Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that happens :) Hekerui (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Protecting Halo: ODST

Heh. I was just about to go put in a request for protection on that article, too. :D Peptuck (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
As you are one of the most prolific editors here on Wikipedia, I believe it's about time you receive a barnstar from me. I am impressed at how many articles you have managed to get to FA status, and how you're able to work in such an efficient manner. You are truly an inspiration to me and many others in terms of writing high quality articles and how to follow Wikipedia's strict image policy. I can't help but to check out your contributions from time to time; I'm amazed at your recent work on Star Trek films to say the least. Keep up the good work and continue doing what you do best! The Prince (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi, I wanted to know if you could help with a copyedit on the lead section for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie as well as the "Releases and debuts" section and anywhere else you detect. Thanx! ATC . Talk 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for all of your edits so far. ATC . Talk 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Freelancer (video game)

Hey oh, David. I am placing Freelancer up for GAR. The reason why I'm telling you this is because you reviewed and passed it as its current status. I wanna know 1), who's was the nominator, and B), if you can comment here. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

articular NFC inquiry

What regards to the Star Trek: First Contact article, was it principally your determination as to which non-free content was to be used therein and how? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

cross-posted from User talk:pd_THOR#Re: Star Trek: First Contact NFC

Oh, please don't think I'm taking you to task for the NFC currently in the article, I just wanted to know if it had been your discretion to use what is currently being used. That being the case, I wanted to give you something.

The Original Barnstar
For you excellent discretion in application of non-free content to the article Star Trek: First Contact. They excellently illustrate points made and discussion of pre-existing, reliably sourced critical commentary. Furthermore, it is an apt exemplar for other editors to see what constitutes appropriate use of NFC, and not just applying them for "decoration" or "illustration of plot/subject". Cheers! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hijacking this thread to ask you a quick one, if you have time. Would I be right in thinking that this image will enter the public domain in the US on September 9 of this year? The film that it's from was released September 9, 1914 and I seem to recall that for works published before 1978 we have to wait 95 years? Many thanks, Steve T • C 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you kindly. Steve T • C 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Enterprise-model-shopped.png

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Enterprise-model-shopped.png, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Enterprise-model-shopped.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Enterprise-model-shopped.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Sorry to burst your bubble (for making a clean "Enterprise"), but no derivative work can be done on the copyrighted object in photos taken under freedom of panorama. Basically one has to use the object in those photos as is (cropping and adding borders can be done, but cutting it out or modifying some aspects of Enterprise in this case is not allowed). See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#The right to modify and [[commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Further derivative works. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I declined your speedy. Discussion of the limits of derivative works or panorama belong at FFD. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NFC review request

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes/archive1 and comment on the fair-use rationale? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ok

sorry about that, i forgot to log out and my cousin got ahold of it. im very sorry

ok

sorry about that, i forgot to log out and my cousin got ahold of it. im very sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-tip17 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Fuchs/Archive_29&oldid=1166519716"