User talk:Oden/Archive 2

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

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar! :) Enjoy your wikibreak! Nat91 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A well-deserved award. Congratulations on the featured article, and I am very impressed by your effort in replacing the fair use image with a free image. Keep up the good work! --Oden 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

I have some concerns of this comment of yours. It violates WP:NPA, in the sense that we shouldn't really be discussing other editors in this manner. I'm not quite sure what it proved by pointing out people's blocks logs, and such comments can only sidetrack the discussion. In fact, it was quite provocative. Please don't make such comments like that again. Violations of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Harassment are considered a very serious matter—and usually end with blocks with the length being increased each time. Khoikhoi 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, however I strongly disagree with your assessment; such comments are justified in this particular context. In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past behaviour of the other contributing editors. ´
WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."
WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."
Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".
If you had contributed to that RfC I would have examined your block log in the same manner that I examined every other editor who contributed to that RfC. I would also have mentioned my own block log if it contained any items.
However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why you have reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).
On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:Harassment, and also quite provocative. --Oden 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the warning is way too soft but the dismissive response from this particular user was only to be expected. His disrputing the user conduct RfC with trollish remarks totally unrelated to the subject in question is pure trolling as well as endless discussions the user conducts very much in line with WP:DFTT#Pestering. The defence above with selective citing policies that obviously do not apply to the user's behavior is not even worthy a responce. --Irpen 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on User talk:Khoikhoi but apparently User:Khoikhoi is too lazy to respond (diff). I think I understand the reason for a lack of response though, and I will let the matter rest. No hard feelings on my part! --Oden 06:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Oden, just because I'm lazy does not mean I wasn't going to respond. ;-) Now, reading the post by Irpen at WP:AN/I, and skimming through the RfC's talk page, I'm going to have to agree with User:Sebbeng here. Ok, I agree with you that your comment wasn't really a personal attack, but it was incivil nonetheless. It's important to not pour petrol on the flames, and the purpose of my warning was to explain to you that saying what you said wasn't very helpful at all. Some people might even see it as trolling... All I really want is things not to get out of hand. Khoikhoi 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What gives?[edit]

As someone who was actually defending Abu badali, I'm surprised you felt it necessary to attack me personally. Not only that, but with a weak poke about a mark on my block log, caused by a misunderstanding, that says nothing of my character. What on Earth would make you think that this kind of behavior is appropriate? -- Ned Scott 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't defending User:Abu badali (read my comments on the RfC under User:Quadell's opinion). I was responding to this statement by User:Sebbeng: diff. Take a look under the heading warning (above), this was not a personal attack, it was an attempt to place the block log of User:Abu badali in the light of the other editors participating in the RfC (which is permitted). If you have taken offence then it wasn't my intention. Sincerely, --Oden 13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly misinterpreting that part of WP:RFC. I don't care if someone "punishes" you or not, so I'm not going to play this game. I will simply tell you this: I am insulted by your comments and they were not appropriate for an RfC. -- Ned Scott 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to interpret "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" in such a way where public logs (which are "public for good reason") are not included. The only thing I can say is that I respect the serious contributions of any editor which improve Wikipedia. If you were insulted it was not my intention, and you are free to browse my logs and make any suggestions which might improve my contributions. Sincerely, Oden (contribs • logs • block user • block log) 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulted that you told other people that I had been blocked, I'm insulted that you used that to say something misleading about my character as an editor. -- Ned Scott 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response to the statement by User:sebbeng was to show that other editors also had items in their logs (in that context User:Abu badali was not different from many of the other editors participating in the RfC). If you (and as it appears several others) interpreted it as a misleading statement or even as an accusation (which it was not intended to be) then I really have communicated this comparison very poorly. I will try to be more clear in the future. --Oden 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the AMA![edit]

Hello Oden, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Oden 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pose[edit]

I contacted Frank; I should have the all clear to go ahead and use the copyright / released tag on it like the other images in the article and get rid of the fair use. In all honesty it isn't the album cover, but rather an insert. --Zeality 22:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Oden 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

My personal blocking was completely unjustified, and thus I still feel "without sin" in your metaphor. It was for a violation of the 3RR on one of those silly April Fools joke pages. Totally stupid, but anyways. You do have the freedom to say what you did, but I still stand by my position on the issue. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the block log doesn't always reflect a user's character, and that a few errors in judgement (especially far in the past) isn't that big of a deal. User:Sebbeng used the word "guilty" regarding User:Abu badali, implying a criminal act (diff).
I wanted to contrast that by showing that by such a standard many of the editors contributing to the RfC would be considered "guilty" of something or another. So I went through the page history of that RfC and listed all the user with items in their block log.
I'll try to be more polite when making this point in the future, and strive for fairness without tipping the scales in the opposite direction. --Oden 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ElianeElias1.png[edit]

Could you please review this page and see if there is any opportunity for a self-revert? Thank you. Tvccs 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag it, it was tagged by User:Abu badali (diff), so I can't revert. I'll leave a comment on the talk page. --Oden 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello.[edit]

could you please pick a replacement pic for the north korea one you removed from my userpage? the aesethic is all off balance now. something feisty. thanks. kzz* 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hid the fair use image you were using in your user namespace since it was against policy. For free images on this topic try Commons:Category:North Korea. --Oden 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QEII Image[edit]

Thanks for finding a free Image of Her Majesty, it's good we finally have one uploaded.

I have cropped that image, so it fits on to pages better. Brian | (Talk) 07:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for cropping it, I couldn't figure out how to do it losslessly. --Oden 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for suggesting the free image, I hope you didn't get discouraged by being called "disruptive", as there's a pretty solid concensus now supporting your proposal :) --kizzle 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! --Oden 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images Uploaded by Anthony5429[edit]

Sorry about that. Actually, I would like to delete the image. How would I go about doing that since I'm the creator and no one else has linked to it? --Anthony5429 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been orphaned, so it should be gone in seven days. --Oden 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would also like CVU2.png deleted since the SVG is now available. How would I go about doing that?
It looks like alot of users still use that image (if you scroll down further on the page you can see where it is being used). So maybe there's no need to delete it quite yet? --Oden 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. For The rule.png, I actually know Ryan Liestman - the leader of that band, and he gave me permission to use that image on Wikipedia. What licensing tag should I use to specify that? --Anthony5429 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo looked very professional, are you sure that the copyright holder released it under the GFDL? Remember that this applies not only to Wikipedia, but to anyone else using the image under that license. --Oden 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote the following in the edit summary: "I am good friends with Ryan Liestman and have direct permission from him to host this self-gimped image on WP". The GFDL applies outside of Wikipedia, so if this a restriction then the image does not meet the license requirements. It could be a fair use image though.--Oden 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - okay. I will just upload a photo I have actually taken of the band - will that work as GFDL? --Anthony5429 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the image really is licensed under the GFDL, then it is ok (i.e. the copyright holder knows what the GFDL is and releases the image under that license, including any use of the image by anyone else, even for commercial purposes).
If the image isn't licensed under the GFDL, then a free image would be preferable. --Oden 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check Fair Use Corrections[edit]

Hello, Oden! I was wondering if it would be possible for you could double check my revisions for image fair use descriptions and criteria for the following: Image:Jigme Singye Wangchuck.jpg, as well as Image:Perry Christie.jpg. I have made corrections and posted better rationales based on what I have seen from other Wikipedia users. I'm hoping that you can look at them and and make edits so the images won't be deleted. I searched several extensive free license sites and databases and found nothing. (Though I did find one of Perry Christie, but with his back turned to the camera, which in my opinion, is not a good substitute). Thank you very much for your time. Have a great day! Scanlan 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."
--Oden 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:fair-use imges[edit]

Hi, you recently tagged a lot of the fair use images I uploaded. Many were from Biography articles, which I uploaded before the stricter rules for fair use came about. I assume then that it is no longer adequate to have screenshots of actors on Bio articles. Is this right?

However some of the images that have been tagged are actually screenshots of television characters, which are included in the article about the television character i.e. this one Image:Carol jackson branning.jpg is an image for this article Carol Jackson. Is it ok to remove those tags, as I believe that those images fall under fair use, as they provide critical commentry of the television programme?

Many Thanks Gungadin 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of fictional characters are often unrepeatable. However, many times these images have also been used improperly to illustrate what the actor looks like, and if the actor is still alive this is not allowed under the fair use criteria. In such cases I have removed the images from the article on the actor, and left it in the article on the fictional character. (Note that a fair use image is allowed in a biographical article to illustrate what a actor playing a role looks like under certain conditions.)
I have tagged images which only serve to illustrate what a living persons looks like as replaceable (although I appear to have made a mistake regarding Image:Carol jackson branning.jpg, which I have self-reverted).
Also note, I have only gone through your most recent uploads, I have not reviewed your first 500 uploaded images. If you want to, you can tag any replaceable images you find with {{subst:rfu}}. Sincerely--Oden 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this. So it is ok to have a small image of an actor playing a certain role, so long as it is not being used solely to illustrate the person and is just being used to illustrate the actor in a role and also ties in with the text. Is that right?
I will work through my uploaded images like you suggested and tag where necessary. Gungadin 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, assuming the image meets the fair use criteria. For instance:

  • Criterion #3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
  • Criterion #8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

Don't place any fair use image at the top of a article when the the article covers a living person, place the image in a section which covers their acting career (if the article is too short to have sections it is probably a indication that it needs to be expanded before any fair use image is placed there). --Oden 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this has been a big help. I appreciate your advice.Gungadin 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EnChor[edit]

What differrence does it make whether one uses {{db-group}} or {{a7}}? - CobaltBlueTony 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None that I can see, since they both refer to CSD Article 7 (A7). They also seem to redirect to the same template. On a personal note, it goes alot faster to type {{a7}}. --Oden 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you have the letter-number meanings memorized. Otherwise, the abbreviations work very well. - CobaltBlueTony 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although the hard part is usually remembering the different criteria for speedy deletion. --Oden 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking/Replaceable fair use images[edit]

After I commented on your unseemly behaviour, you seem to continue your ad hominem-motivated crusade by specifically targeting images uploaded by me. WP:STALKing is strictly forbidden and may lead to blocks. Your selective attacks will be under scrutiny on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oden. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you are being stalked then you are free to do so. However, I must point out that WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." --Oden 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You follow my edits after I criticised your selective and ad hominem approach. This is totally unacceptable. That's what stalking and harrassing is about. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it upon myself to review the upload logs of many contributors in order to make sure that the uploaded images are in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning the use of images. If you feel that I have tagged an image incorrectly you are welcome to dispute this (but don't remove the tags). You are also free to review my contributions Oden (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you don't contibute new articles and images to Wikipedia, instead harrassing those wikipedians who do. Your activities seem aimed at deteriorating the level of Wikipedia and your understanding of our policies is faulty. Please cool off, contribute several articles (preferrably featured) and return to productive editing with the newly-acquired understanding of what WP is all about. Thanks for your efforts, Ghirla -трёп- 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have uploaded over 1000 images to Wikipedia, a small portion of them are replaceable ({{rfu}}). Most of the rest are Public Domain and can be moved to the Wikimedia Commons ({{NCT}}). I am doing both those things. --Oden 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I have no problems working with wikipedians who are not as aggressive as you are. When they tell me that some image may be replaced, I obtain the permission to use an alternative image in Wikipedia and replace them one by one. Furthermore, most fairuse images were uploaded when Template:PD-USSR was considered valid. Then, out of the blue, its use was deprecated and hundreds images were either retagged as fairuse (in en.wiki) or simply deleted (in Commons). Therefore I would appreciate if you don't move any images to Commons and approach me with one image per day, so that I could negotiate a suitable free replacement. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you removed the {{rfu}} tags from the images I have tagged as replaceable, I have stopped tagging the rest. I will post a list of these images for you to review on your talk page and here:

  • Needs better rationale:
    • Image:Kubrat sword.jpg
    • Image:Sarmatian crown.jpg
    • Image:Permic bear.jpg
    • Image:Scythian resurrection.jpg
    • Image:Pazyryk deer.jpg
    • Image:Scythian tatoo.jpg
    • Image:Hermitageswan.jpg
    • Image:Phanagoria sphinx.jpg
    • Image:Shubin.jpg
    • Image:Grigory Vladimirovich Orlov.jpg
    • Image:Amberroomdetail.jpg
  • Fixed fair use rationales for these images. --Oden 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images depict buildings which anyone can photograph. Others are from a museum website, and anyone can probably visit the museum and photograph these items. Note: fair use images which you have uploaded and which I have considered non-replaceable I have left untagged. This does not preclude that another editor might tag them as replaceable in the future. Sincerely, --Oden 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag you added says: "The tag added without an explanation or with a frivolous explanation can be deleted". Case closed. Now you try to insinuate that taking photographs is allowed in the Golden fund of the Hermiatage museum. I wish you would procure one image here and upload it to Wikipedia. That would have been fine. I am not aware of any possibility of doing so. As for "buildings which anyone can photograph", it would be great if you provided replacement images. For my own part, I replaced dozens if not hundreds fairuses with free replacements and I intend to continue doing so in the future. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the images from the museum are not replaceable, then it would be helpful if this was stated on the image page. (I briefly examined the museum's website which did not mention any such restrictions.)
  • As for buildings, it is not necessary to replace an image: if the image could be replaced then it does not meet the fair use criteria. --Oden 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose all fairuse images uploaded by me after OrphanBot started operating and fairuse rationales became compulsory do contain rationales. As for buildings, I will replace Kikin.jpg, Oldrussa.jpg, and Yelets.jpg with free pictures later today, but I can't replace them all in one minute, you know. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I appreciate your help on the Kubrat sword. You know, once upon a time, I started tracking unfree images with the object of their deletion. These were mostly Persian and Polish images: there were huge images of new shiny buildings tagged as fairuse. Every article I opened was infested. When I started complaining, I was dodged: the uploaders simply retagged or reuploaded images as private domain and everyone forgot about it. Now I see them galore on Achaemenids and Warsaw (Image:Warsawsynagoga.jpg, Image:Wawka.jpg, Image:Wawka2.jpg, etc), to name only a few articles, and nobody seems to care. That's why I disapprove of the selective approach. Those who honestly tag the uploaded images as fairuse are persecuted. Those who upload unfree images as private domain have impunity. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed fair use rationales for some of the images mentioned above which can be objectively regarded as "very difficult to replace" (perhaps even close to impossible to replace).
Some of the images you have uploaded I have not mentioned (since I consider them next to impossible to replace), but they could use a better fair use rationale:
Since you are aware of the need to replace fair use images with free ones, I will leave it up to you to review the images mentioned and provide a suitable fair use rationale. However, there is a risk that User:Bogdangiusca, who is an admin, might get involved with your contributions since he has already tagged two of them with {{rfu}}.
Sincerely, --Oden 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know Bogdangiusca for ages and I think his intentions were good. I am surprised that he did not notify me about tagging, however. I just uploaded free replacements for Yelets.jpg, Kikin.jpg, and Valaam.jpg and removed them from the articles. I also uploaded a new image for Kondopoga (the previous one looks suspect to me). I will continue sorting out images that you pointed out, although my time online is limited today and I will probably be offline until Monday. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if there is anything I can help out with regarding your images. Otherwise I will leave it to your best judgement to determine whether an image is replaceable or not. (A side note: thank you for your contributions!) --Oden 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you. I replaced both images tagged by Bogdanguisca with free pictures and sorted out images on Kirillov-Belozersky Monastery, eliminating fairuse. I will try to negotiate more free replacements next week. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BangladeshBooty alt.jpg[edit]

Please, go ahead and delete it. I have no use for it anymore. Still I'd like to point out that it was used to prove a point - Bangladesh Booty isn't that non-notable a film, and the information about it may stay. I guess I did it partly out of worry that it may look non-notable to warrant a removal. Thanks. - Aditya Kabir 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - please, reply to my talk page[reply]

I tagged it since it wasn't being used, I did not take the image itself or what it depicts into consideration. If the image was accidentally removed you can return it to the article in question and remove the tag from the image. Othwerwise, if the image isn't being used, it should be deleted. --Oden 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking[edit]

No problem. —Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking/Log review[edit]

I know that WP:STALK says that it "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy", but there are points when things get too far. The same page also says:

  • "The important part [of stalking] is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.",
  • "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." and
  • "Constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy".

Policy violations are routinely addressed by patrolling images by topic, at random, by alphabet, by license, etc. Also by following known problem contributors. Not by picking contributors purely based on their disagreeing with you on unrelated matters and attacking all their work.

It has come to my attention at WP:ANI that both users criticizing your actions in totally unrelated matters prompted you to respond by analyzing that users many months of editing and tagging their images with various tags. This could not possibly have been a pure coincidence and the aim of your action doesn't appear to be the general compliance of images with policies—but causing the annoyance and distress to the particular users.

This sort of behavior is seen as disruptive. Please don't do it again. Khoikhoi 03:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed these contributer's upload log since their comments gave the impression that they either did not understand or did not wish to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the use of images. (I have also reviewed your contributions, since your previous comments on this talk page suggested a gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in regard to a RfC).
I am concerned that this sets a precedent where it is not acceptable to review a editors contributions in good faith when there are indications that the contributions in question need to be examined. I am also concerned that some editors upload over 1000 images to Wikipedia (many of which belong on the Wikimedia Commons) without greater reflection. All of this suggests a form of ownership of the material in question.
I will take some time away from Wikipedia to reflect upon your comments.--Oden 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy and Stalking[edit]

Oden, in a few recent months we significantly increased our requirements to the Fair Use images. Thus, while scrutiny of the past uploads is a very important job it is critically important that your interactions with the uploaders were in positive manner. Any shadow of doubt that your efforts are intended to the good of the project or that you somehow use the copyright matters for a personal interests, e.g. for harassing users you have a conflict with are absolutely unacceptable. And I can't help but notice that your interactions with User:Irpen and User:Ghirlandajo are very doubtful.

Please find a way to make these interactions positive rather than negative. If you are having problems with communications or it somehow unacceptable please find another job on Wikipedia. Here you are dealing with long term good faith contributors and act as the face of our project. Wikipedia has nothing but a community of devoted volunteers. Do not destroy it. Alex Bakharev 10:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Ghirlandajo also started a heading on this talk page titled "thanks" on this talk page (diff), which suggests that the interaction had a positive outcome.
  • User:Irpen on the other hand has vandalised pages and posted trollish comments, and such an editor must always be subject to review.
  • I will take some time away from Wikipedia to reflect upon your comments. --Oden 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting your userpage[edit]

Hi, I see you request your userpage to be deleted. Fine, I will do it. But I have to say, don't leave. You are needed here. Images is one big mess and Wikipedia badly needs help sorting it out. Ghirla has the "untouchable" aura about him. Don't you dare to critisize him, don't you dare to touch him with the little finger, otherwise you will be accused of all sins that there are. I been through that myself. I know what it feels. And it's a shame that you became one of his victims. Don't let that happen, please. You are better, and you are right. Stand up and fight! Renata 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to back up Renata3 comments. You have been doing a good job sorting out the Images on wikipedia. Have a wikibreak and have some time out Brian | (Talk) 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you come back soon, as well. —Chowbok ☠ 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings here...I appreciate the fact that you took the time to be helpful, as I have commented elsewhere, regarding maximizing and perfecting the FUR's you recently listed by the dozen in my images. I also appreciate the fact that you were willing to discuss matters in a reasonable manner in that area, and in the images you contacted me on, were also willing to admit that you were mistaken regarding possible copyright violations, and self-reverted, although I wish you would have made that perfectly clear at my user talk page as well. At the same time, I did not appreciate being targeted to have to defend dozens of images in such a short timeframe while others you know who share your views on "free or nothing" attacked dozens of my other images in a coordinated effort. I radically disagree with both the premise and methods under use on the entire subject, and with those employing them, and hope they are stopped, somehow, and soon. I also hope you return. Best wishes. Tvccs 07:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I am taking a little time off for things to settle down a bit.--Oden 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops![edit]

My mistake, I thought the tempalte said replace it with fair use disputed, not add it. Please don't assume I did this under bad faith, as this was not the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Oden 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate[edit]

You created User Oden/Boilerplate. Can I assume you really meant to create User:Oden/Boilerplate? Right now it's in the main namespace. eaolson 15:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made a mistake (twice: User Oden/Boilerplate and User Oden:Boilerplate). Subpages are a little tricky to create (it's my first). --Oden 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

I have some concerns of this comment of yours. It violates WP:NPA, in the sense that we shouldn't really be discussing other editors in this manner. I'm not quite sure what it proved by pointing out people's blocks logs, and such comments can only sidetrack the discussion. In fact, it was quite provocative. Please don't make such comments like that again. Violations of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Harassment are considered a very serious matter—and usually end with blocks with the length being increased each time. Khoikhoi 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, however I strongly disagree with your assessment; such comments are justified in this particular context. In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past behaviour of the other contributing editors. ´
WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."
WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."
Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".
If you had contributed to that RfC I would have examined your block log in the same manner that I examined every other editor who contributed to that RfC. I would also have mentioned my own block log if it contained any items.
However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why you have reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).
On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:Harassment, and also quite provocative. --Oden 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the warning is way too soft but the dismissive response from this particular user was only to be expected. His disrputing the user conduct RfC with trollish remarks totally unrelated to the subject in question is pure trolling as well as endless discussions the user conducts very much in line with WP:DFTT#Pestering. The defence above with selective citing policies that obviously do not apply to the user's behavior is not even worthy a responce. --Irpen 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on User talk:Khoikhoi but apparently User:Khoikhoi is too lazy to respond (diff). I think I understand the reason for a lack of response though, and I will let the matter rest. No hard feelings on my part! --Oden 06:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Oden, just because I'm lazy does not mean I wasn't going to respond. ;-) Now, reading the post by Irpen at WP:AN/I, and skimming through the RfC's talk page, I'm going to have to agree with User:Sebbeng here. Ok, I agree with you that your comment wasn't really a personal attack, but it was incivil nonetheless. It's important to not pour petrol on the flames, and the purpose of my warning was to explain to you that saying what you said wasn't very helpful at all. Some people might even see it as trolling... All I really want is things not to get out of hand. Khoikhoi 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Movie posters high resolution[edit]

I am all for making sure that all images on Wikipedia are free to use but I would prefer it if I was notified. The amount of film posters that are being tagged will make for a lot of messy pages when the images are deleted, especially if nobody has been notified of the chance of deletion (Quentin X 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have not tagged high-resolution images for deletion because I have disputed the assertion that they meet the fair use critieria. The tag in question, {{fair use disputed}}, does not require that the uploader be notified since the image has not been tagged for deletion. When an image is nominated for deletion the uploader will be notified (there is more information at WP:IFD).
It is important that fair use images on Wikipedia do not negatively affect the market role for the product in question, and I am concerned that the high-resolution images of film posters and album covers which you have uploaded could be used to print and sell pirated (bootlegged) CDs and DVDs. The consequence could be that Wikipedia becomes involved in a legal dispute with the original copyright holder.
If you upload web-resolution versions of the images in question under a new name you can tag the old images with {{or-fu-re|Image:NewName.ext}}. You could also upload web-resolution versions under the same name. --Oden 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grafikm_fr's personal vendetta[edit]

Renata, this is at best a disgusting personal attack. As for Oden, his behaviour was criticized by several other users (including your servant), so making it sound like Ghirla's crusade is at best inadequate. As for Ghirla himself, well, at least he's creating content, not taking fun in destroying it in the name of grand yet hollow principles like "free content" and "yeah sure, you can take a free pic of this star, just ask her". -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amended: user has stated below that this post was not posted on this talk page. --Oden 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amended: the user has stated below that this post was not aimed at this editor. --Oden 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My This talk page is not a forum for your personal vendettas, do not use Wikipedia for your own personal agenda, instead try to find a way to assume good faith and to contribute in a positive way.
As concerns your attitude regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such a statement gives cause for concern, and compels a need to review your contributions in greater detail in order to ensure that any material you have contributed (like Image:Teresa wong.jpg) is not in violation of policy. --Oden 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended as per below. --Oden 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal vendetta, for instance there are at least two RFCs underway for your peers who exhibit a similar behaviour of stalking other people's contributions. Oh, and I'm sorry, after people like Chowbok and Abu badali, I can't assume good faith from people destroying content.
And by the way, my post was a reply to Renata, so it's not only your talk page, which you don't own. --~ Grafikm (AutoGRAF)
Are not all of us "peers" to some extent or another? Is it not our peers, yours and mine, who are subject to any RfC? When we throw egg on each other, do we not all end up with egg on our faces?
Well, my goal is not to be a pain for various editors by censoring their contribs. Unless a copyvio is in order, or if there an obvious FU abuse (15 screenshots of a game in an article for instance), there is no point to censor FU content, other than to be a pain for other editors. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it ironic that you should use the term "destroying content" and reference WP:OWN in the same comment. How can anyone else destroy something that is not yours in the first place? The mind boggles. --Oden 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text and photos are not the same thing. You can write whatever you want, all you need is a computer (well, and references too, but referencing is free, provided you do not copy-paste content). You can draw almost any graph or map, that's true too. However, you can't, realistically speaking, take any pic you would like to. That's where FU comes in. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any privilege can be abused, so too can the privilege of uploading fair use images on Wikipedia be abused. Policy, like content, can also be subject to changes. User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation provides something of an explanation regarding the current state of fair use images on Wikipedia.
Regarding stalking, Meatball Wiki describes it as "repeated, out-of-process attempts to become involved in a victim's life". Content and contributions are, within reasonable limits, relevant. This is also why we have Wikipedia:Editor review, a voluntary form of examination. However, the truth is that any contributor can be subject to review at any time, just look at any RfA or RfC. --Oden 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reflected upon how several contributors which I have encountered place such a great emphasis on finding good images, and omit or lessen the importance of writing good articles.

My contention is that it is possible to write a excellent article completely without images, while the opposite is naturally impossible. Therefore there is no doubt that the most important goal for every editor must be a well-written article, and that the use of images is a secondary matter. The cavalier attitude which some editors display regarding the criteria for use of fair use images on Wikipedia diminishes, in my opinion, the hard work of other editors who write great articles and who then attempt to find images under a free license before resorting to a fair use image under the fair use criteria.

Wikipedia:Article development places the inclusion of any images among the stage of "finishing touches" to an article (here). All to often I have encountered articles (almost stubs) which lack basic features like infoboxes, lead-ins and sections, proper references and other flaws, yet the editor in question insists on a fair use image which serves no other purpose than to illustrate the subject (such as in Nataliya Dmytruk).

In one instance (Daria Werbowy) the fair use image took up more than a third of the article space. For the editor in question (User:Irpen) to spend so much time arguing about image quality to illustrate such a imperfect article suggests a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia (Image talk:Werbowy.jpg). Another editor (User:PageantUpdater) had uploaded almost 200 fair use images (view the first version of one article: Tami Farrell). Compare that with the current version: Tami Farrell.

Other language versions of Wikipedia do not allow fair use images, and I have begun to wonder if that is the best solution. --Oden 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Please note that I am not commenting in general upon the contributions of the editors mentioned or on their persons, but only on their comments and actions regarding the fair use criteria and use of fair use images on Wikipedia).[reply]

Sarah Shahi image[edit]

I noticed your editors note [here] when I went to add the image [here] to her celebrity box, and I had wanted to ask you for an explanation. The image is a TV still from her work on the show "Teachers" and as such seems to qualify for fair use on wikipedia. However, I am not a copyright lawyer, just wanted to see what your rationale is before I add the image. You can answer here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer. -Markeer 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image in user namespace[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for removing the picture Christopher Walken.jpg from my usepage. I guess I didn't pay as much attention as I should have on the criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I'll have it in mind from now on! Good thing I haven't uploaded any images so far... :) --DimTsi 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding a replacement with a free license, but there was none to be found. If you have any questions on using images on Wikipedia don't hesitate to ask! --Oden 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irpen[edit]

To add to this, especially repugnant is your "threatening" editors with "reviewing their contibutions" with intent to cause them distress by attacking their work in response to their criticizing you for your actions elsewhere. Stalking is specifically differentiated from legitimate patrolling by the intentions. It is the foul intentions of the actions that makes your activity harassment. --Irpen 07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Bakharev[edit]

I asked you to stop using "scrutiny of contributions" as a weapons. I find this edit to be of a kind that I specifically ask you not to do because it harms the project a big deal. Please do not do such threats again or I would have to block you for disruption. I like your edits to Nataliya Dmytruk. They were positive and non-controversial. Maybe you would be better off if concentrate on this type of work Alex Bakharev 07:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That comment (diff) was in response to a message left by that editor on this talk page (diff). The same response is posted above, where the dialogue has taken place.
In all fairness, should you not also threaten to block User:Grafikm_fr if he posts comments like that again? I certainly found them disruptive to this talk page, the object of which is to improve the behaviour of this editor and not to engage in a personal vendetta with others. However after entering into a dialogue the user in question seems to understand that this page is not intended as a forum for two other editors to debate their personal differences.
Regarding "scrutiny of contributions", if a editor posted a comment stating that he disagrees with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or any of Wikipedia's other core policies, that editor's contributions would certainly be subject to review. Why should WP:IUP and WP:FUC, also policy, be regarded in a different manner? --Oden 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats/User:InShaneee[edit]

Regarding this: It is not your responsibility to police Wikipedia, and threatening other users with action is not acceptable. If you have a problem with another user, deal with it through the proper channels. --InShaneee 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are not editors who do new page, RC or new image patrol in some sense "policing Wikipedia"? Are not templates like {{bv}} threats of action? There is a fine line between being right and being rude, the hard part is not to cross over it. I believe the comment in question is justified when the admin in question makes a strong threat like "blocks with the length being increased each time" and does not enter into a dialouge.
The best way for a editor to improve his contributions is to learn from his mistakes, and if the admin who issues the warning does not enter into a dialogue the editor to which the warning was issued might feel that they have been treated unfairly or singled out. Alternately, if the admin perhaps made a mistake, admitting that mistake is the mature response. Refusing to enter into a dialogue, like User:Khoikhoi has done, is only childish. --Oden 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting thought occurred to me: is not your posting of this comment also an act of "policing Wikipedia"? If there were a problem to speak of, should you not also have sought remedy through a proper channel? --Oden 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khoikhoi[edit]

Oden, I didn't respond because you archived my comment, which gave me the feeling that you didn't want me to talk to you. Besides, it's only been like two days anyways, and it's clear that I have a sign at the top of my talk page that says "I may not respond swiftly to queries". I wasn't ignoring you.

Anyways, the warning was still appropriate. When someone critizes your actions, harassing them is generally not the proper way to solve a dispute. I'm not sure what the threat about an RfC was about either. We've only talked very briefly—how much evidence could you have? What else would the RfC be about? Khoikhoi 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not responded on your talk page, after 10 days. Furthermore you placed that sign on your talk page after I posted my comment, my response and a third message urging you to respond. I am disappointed in your lack of participation in this matter. I also stand by my first response, my comment was not wrong, and the severe wording of your warning was not justified.
I archived my talk page because it was getting long and Werdnabot does not seem to be working properly. Since the original thread it is still on your talk page I will leave a message there for you to comment. --Oden 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never reply to comments on my own talk page. Anyways, please don't misrepresent me. Nowhere did I ever "refuse" to reply to your comment. I'll check out the thread. By the "original warning", did you mean the one about the block logs? Khoikhoi 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Oden 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I checked WP:AN/I. All I see is a thread called "Oden's threats". Am I missing something? Khoikhoi 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to your warning of December 2, 2006, I am reposting your warning and my response in a new section below; please respond to that. --Oden 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amendment: it turns out that you did respond here, I must have missed that, which is my fault. I was monitoring your talk page, and you responded here (I seem to get alot of messages). I will strike my two most recent comments from your talk page, if that is alright with you? --Oden 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts at BDORT[edit]

Hi Oden. Thank you for your help with the reversions. This may sound strange to you, but although we need the help - in fact we are being barraged by anon-IP's who are tendentiously editing and reverting in the same style as the blocked users, and although the latest anon-IP is quite certainly a sock or meat puppet of the blocked users, the actual edits are not 'vandalism' per se. I think you'd be better off calling them 'revert of suspected sockpuppet of blocked user' or another valid reason. Again, I do appreciate the help that we badly need in this entry, and every revert of a sock or meat puppet or helps, but we should play by the rules and use the right edit summary terminology. Thanks again, Crum375 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep it in mind.--Oden 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Do not remove tags from image pages[edit]

A mistake. Please don't accuse me of vandalism. Thank you. User:Sebbeng 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Oden 07:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VC 4000 image and Irpen[edit]

I want to thank you for catching the problem with the Image:Vc4000.jpg, obviously there is very slim chance that Incognito's edit was in good faith. I have left him a strong warning. On the other hand, I think that the actions of Sebbeng/Irpen are reasonable. The retagged the image as a Fair Use and argued replaceability of the image by claiming the rarity of the console. I think in this circumstances the {{imagevio}} was excessive. It is better to have the discussion in one place.

Usually it is considered right although not very polite to remove messages from the talk pages. They are still read by the recipient and they are kept in the history of the talk page for anybody to review. The same goes BTW to the early archiving of somebody's talkpage before the issue is settled. T

The users usually have some sort of control over the subpages in their userspace but they do not WP:OWN them. At any rate Irpen has the edit conflict not with Chowbook but with User:Naconkantari and User:Robth. I do not see what i can do in this case. Alex Bakharev 09:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Regarding {{imagevio}} it looks similar to {{copyvio}} which is not supposed to be removed. Of course, if the copyright issue can be addressed successfully then the template could be removed. On the other hand, the image is still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, something that the template is meant to show.
I think that the best solution might be that the editor who believes that the image should be fair use uploads the image under a new name, so that the copyright issues regarding the first editors upload (or uploads if more than one) can be dealt with as a separate issue.--Oden 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights[edit]

Please recognize and respect what is written regarding the copyright of an item before changing tags.

  • A derivative work is one which uses someone else's work to create something new. Photographing, scanning, reproducing an old artwork purely for the purposes of representing that artwork is not derivative. Please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. if you are having trouble understanding this.
  • I apologize that, due to the insane difficulties of finding images through the most ideal channels, we are forced to resort to finding things on websites which may or may not have been scanned from books, particularly images that do not cite their source. But this does not change the fact that photographers do not own the copyrights to artworks they photograph, and book publishers do not own the copyrights to those artworks either. If the artist is dead over 70 years, the object is public domain. Or at the very least fair use.
  • Rather than changing tags towards getting images deleted, I humbly request that you please devote more time and effort to helping your fellow Wikipedians find replacement equivalent images that are safer to use within the restrictions imposed. Deletionist activity is counterproductive to the educational and intellectual purposes of the encyclopedia; if you are concerned about Wikipedia violating copyright law, please help us find better, alternative ways to present images of artworks or other subjects which are public domain. LordAmeth 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the FAQs you link to at the top of your page, and I am a bit confused about one point; I am hoping you can help. Fair use criteria #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.... However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." For many of the images I am working with, i.e. old artworks, it is difficult to say whether or not a free equivalent is available, because of the tight controls museums, publishers and the like place on public domain artworks. These artworks of course do still exist, and freely-licensed photographs could be taken, but only if the museums, galleries, or private owners of said artwork (owners of the physical object, not of the copyright, which only lasts until 70-100 years after the artist's death, right?) allow one to take photos, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. I say all of this not by way of complaining or whining, but by way of explaining my predicament and asking for your advice. Where is the line drawn between "no free equivalent is available" and "free equivalents could be created or obtained in theory, but are nearly impossible to obtain in reality"? Ultimately, my question is not to find an explanation for why we cannot use these images; my goal is to find out how we can. Thank you for any help you might be able to offer. Happy Holidays. LordAmeth 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. the parties were all within the jurisdiction of US law. The situation discussed here could involve Japanese copyright law or the laws of other countries. The safe solution is to license the images as fair use.
  • I also noted that the photographer or the location of the works of art depicted is not noted on the image page. Such information is always useful (and it could make the difference between fair use and public domain).
  • Image:Horagai-conchtrumpet.jpg appears to be a scan of a colour photograph, and I am certain that colour photography is a fairly recent invention. Without knowing if the image is public domain I have relicensed it as fair use.
  • Replaceability is dependent on access, if the work of art is in a place to which the public has access (such as a statue in a public square) the image is considered replaceable. If it is in a museum or collection which does not allow photography then it is not considered replaceable. (And if the image is destroyed, like Picasso's Le Pentrie then it certainly is not possible to photograph it and license the photograph under a free license.)--Oden 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thank you very much for your help with this issue, and for your kind attitude. LordAmeth 00:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fairuse tag[edit]

Hi, please don't use {{fairuse}} on images if at all possible. This is a deprecated tag, and the remaining images are basically old leftovers that all need to be reclassified. Since you're already looking at the image, try to put the right tag on it, at least {{Non-free fair use in}} for the article in which it's already being used. Stan 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Oden 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards[edit]

Indeed, I requested protection. (→Netscott) 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the IP addresses for the three anonymous users which reverted your edits to Michael Richards (81.182.44.242 (talk · contribs), 81.182.105.132 (talk · contribs) and 81.182.109.52 (talk · contribs)) and they all have the same ISP and location. It might be plausible to assume that the edits are somehow related. --Oden 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the anon editor has been hoping IPs to avoid 3RR violation. He's falsely "rvv"d across a number of editors besides myself (and I suspect shortly your own edit will be "rvv"d). The article needs {{sprotect}}ing to cease this nonsense. (→Netscott) 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be worth trying to leave a message on the IP talk page urging the editor to discuss controversial edits on the article talk page instead of starting a edit war (and getting blocked for violating WP:3RR). Of course, if the editor is changing IP addresses then leaving a message on one talk page serves little purpose. --Oden 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until a range block or sprotection is instituted it is virtually pointless trying to counter the anon editor's bad faith edits. (→Netscott) 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KaDee Strickland[edit]

You'll never believe what good your tagging of Image:KaDee Strickland in Fever Pitch.jpg, the (former) lead image on the KaDee Strickland article, as replaceable fair use did. I moved the image down the article so that it was illustrating her role in the film and not just her (because I know that doesn't count as fair use), but then I decided to try and get a free-licensed image of her. I emailed three different sources, all of whom responded and offered to donate images under a free license! So now there is not one, but three free-licensed images on the article, and it's mostly thanks to you. So, here it is: thank you so much! Removing replaceable fair use images or tagging them as replaceable gives people the incentive to look for free-licensed ones. So keep up the good work! Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, the images look great! --Oden 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and the barnstar! I didn't expect that... Extraordinary Machine 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards sockpuppetry?[edit]

I am very suspicious that 81.182.xxx.xxx, the anon user responsible for controversial edits and 3RR violations to the Michael Richards page is none other than User:Kgeza67. Almost the minute the article was semi-protected, Kgeza67 returned and began performing very similar edits to the anon user. Circumstantial evidence seems to support my suspicion. Is this enough reason for me to bring this to the attention of the admins who monitor Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kind[edit]

Ugh. Thanks for letting me know about the possible copy violation I apparently was endorsing. Definitely not my intention. Is there anything you want me to do about this?--ViolinGirl♪ 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the material probably is public domain since it comes from a federal government website and the material has been edited since that I think the matter can rest. But generally speaking it is always good to keep an eye on the newbies to check for rookie mistakes. You could also consider removing the Barnstar from the user's talk page. --Oden 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I've not been active on Wikipedia as of late anyway (just happened to get on to check for messages)...but if I decide to give another barnstar for similar work, I will double check for a similar case. I think in this particular instance it could be offensive to remove the barnstar; I'll leave it for now. Thanks again for your concern. Have a nice day!--ViolinGirl♪ 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Wears Prada onesheet[edit]

I found a version of that same onesheet that was low-resolution (72 dpi) and uploaded it into the article (which I'm doing a lot of work on). You can go ahead and delete the old one (ok, I wasn't the original uploader, but it's no skin off my back). Daniel Case 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Image:Devil wears prada styleA.jpg, it is important that images used on Wikipedia do not affect the original market role for the material. Uploading a lower resolution image (like Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.jpg) is a good improvement. Thanks! --Oden 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anton_Balasingham1.jpg[edit]

I fail to see how the Image:Anton_Balasingham1.jpg, can be licensed under {{PD-Japan}}, when balasingham was a sri lankan terrorist who died recently and who had nothing to do with japan.Kerr avon 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the image history it never was licensed as {{PD-Japan}} (diff). However, since I have not uploaded the image or altered the license I fail to see how I am affected by the licensing? --Oden 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I highlighted this because Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#December_18 my statement was struck out and you had apparently claimed [4] that it falls under {{PD-Japan}}. Also I wish to state that Rajsingam who initially uploaded that image under the blatantly false license of a book cover has numerous instances of warnings for uploading non free images.Kerr avon 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to strike out Image:AnamiKorechika.jpg, but it appears that I made a mistake. I have made a correction, and I have also reviewed Rajsingam's uploads and found many instances of apparent copyright violation (I also posted some those warnings on User talk:Rajsingam). Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. --Oden 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Raj 03.jpg[edit]

Hi Oden,

The photo of Late Mr. Anton Balasingham (Not a member of the Sri Lankan State Terrorists), I have already replaced with another one.

I altered Raj 03.jpg with another photo.

The following photos, I have attached "fair use tags".


Please let me know if there are any queries.

Rajsingam 22 Dec. 2006



    • Added comments.--Oden 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oden,

Pilimatalava.jpg is not replaceable as he died in the 19th century.

Rosy Senanayake is willing to give her permission and I have changed the status of the tag. Please let me know whether she could send the e-mail to you directly or through me the permission.

Other photos still, I don't have any clear idea at the moment.

Rajsingam 23 Dec. 2006

Hi Oden,

Thanks, You have done a good job by inserting infobox to Anton Balasingham.

Rajsingam 23 Dec. 2006

Regarding Image:Pilimatalava.jpg, the image appears to be in a place to which the public has access, so anyone could take a picture and publish it under a free license.
Regarding Image:Rosys.jpg, it appears that the publisher (the United Nations) has the copyright to the image [5]. The UN is very clear when it comes to copyright: Copyright notice. --Oden 07:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oden,

As per your suggestion, I have created a funeral story and used the right photo.

If you could please, could you alter with appropriate tag for Pilimatalava.

I am sure UN doesn't have the copyright for that art work and I will give a details information in the coming days.


Rajsingam 23 Dec. 2006

Categories[edit]

Hello!

I noticed that you are organizing categories. While I don't understand the system you are using I have no problem other than that you should not remove information. For instance in Fredrik Reinfeldt you turned 10 categories into 9, omitting Category:Swedish party leaders (diff). In Samuel Schmid you omitted Category:Swiss people (diff). Please be more careful.

Sincerely, --Oden 11:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those edits were correct as those categories are redundant. Please think before criticising others. Thank you. Haddiscoe 11:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Wikipedia:Categories for discussion without any mention of these categories. See also Wikipedia:Civility. --Oden 11:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article of SIA Girl[edit]

Based on the references by Martin Roll, it is used as references and it is not a direct copy of the article. As much as you wish to remove the article, it isnt fair to remove the article completely... The article has been modified with true intentions of refecting as much information as possible to highlight the subject & content to mostly true as possible.

If u think there is any copyright infringement, what are the steps to prove that the articl is genuine and true... please highlight to me possibly instead of copying and pasting tags which i could not understand, there are only 2 paragraphs that mirrors the original article from teh website. The rest are purely based on mine. Thanks

Please take note i have put that in the talk page of that article and i hope u can revert it back. Additional information will be modified later.YuRiPa 07:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slated back to orginal text[edit]

I have been given permission to retype the article based on my own words using a few references from the aabove mentioned URL. However, based on your rules that it requires tags whatsoever, i have typed in my own words, and therefore modified its text with no absolute direct copy to the article, please do understnd that i have worked hard to produce this article with my own words and in no way infringed the previous article produced. Do read carefully thsat the article has been retyped by my own words.

If being an adminstrator that promotes contributing and fair editing, perhaps you shouldn't remove my article and state that it is copyvio becos it is not! It is not fair to me that u should remove my articles without any genuine reasons and the reason u gave me isn't good enough! Thanks. If u think this article should be reviewed for further approval, at least tag the article with {{ requires reviewing }} or something... please slate back my article to its previous original text.YuRiPa 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not an administrator.
  • Regarding the article in question, the first version (which you created) was a blatant copyright violation from two websites. Wikipedia:Copyright problems requires a revert to a clean revision (which is not possible) or a speedy deletion. I have also located a free image Image:Singapore Airlines flight attendants.jpg which replaces the two fair use images you uploaded. Please pay attention to copyright! --Oden 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop trying to remove my article.. i have replaced with content solely based on my own typing and non whatsoever is copyright infringement from any other website... Do not replaced my article with your own! I have based my research on designer Pierre Balmain and you also used my reference to create a so called cleaner slate of your own. If you keep on doing this, yu will be blocked asl well. Please try to remain civil ok? YuRiPa 10:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Balasingham[edit]

I have well placed the reference for the above article, please let me know where I stand.

Rajsingam 24 Dec. 2006

I will take a look at the article. --Oden 07:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mayj.jpg on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Mayj.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Taskinlude 08:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I have left a comment. --Oden 09:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent request for checkuser[edit]

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Luna Santin 10:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

Just a follow-up to let you know that this was confirmed. You should probably make a note of the decision on the talk page of that article, regarding the fact that the user claiming copyright ownership actually isn't the copyright holder. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! --Oden 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation and edit warring by user:Rajsingam[edit]

I am having a problem with user:Rajsingam, he has been removing cited commentrary critical of balasingham, he has verbatim copied material from the pro LTTE site tamilnet with regards to the london funeral http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20673 thus creating a possible copyright violation, he has been making POV edits, and he has been edit warring reverting my edits without rationale. I am unable to proceed further as I will be in violation of the 3RR rule, I would be gratefull if you could advice on how to proceed with this user who is hell bent on using this wiki to push his own POV, and blatant dishonest practices like uploading images under false licenses. Thanks.Kerr avon 13:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a chance. --Oden 13:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to report copyright violations (e.g. John Korsm). This is to let you know that the contents of an article should be blanked/replaced when adding the {{copyvio}} template. Happy editing, and merry christmas! :) - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unsure about this in the past because blanking in general is not allowed, so it takes some getting used to this exception to the norm. Seasons greetings! --Oden 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:CariDee07.jpg[edit]

For your information, i have been highlighted of this issue and the issue has been rectified already. redundancy doesnt work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YuRiPa (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

Online Bullying[edit]

You are one mean streak aren't ya? First foremost, you remove my article and then you created a new one based on references that i used to made in the previous old article. Not only that, you constantly accuse me of blatantly using copyvio material even though i have modify and updated the article in my own words. Not only you being a tell tale and being a constant beeyotch to make personal attacks to me and earsing my hard earned work!

Let me tell you one thing, you are one BIG bully, and i hope you stop bothering me! What makes you think that being a detailed editor and fair contributor makes you a senior? And you got an administrator to blopck me for 24 hours?!! Nice try, bugger,but no cigar. Let me tell you, there is karma of reaping what you sowed. Why are you being such a bully? I am aghast that you recreate that article and made it your own. There is nothing like hypocrites like you and i hate people like that!

You made references by quoting sentences and words like Asian values and warm hospitality... that is from venture republic article... you accused me of copyvio the article yet you do the same likewise. A pot calling a kettle black! Be careful that you don;t get a lump of coal in your stocking this Christmas, you gringe. Two words for you simply: BAH HUMBUG! You'll get your shortcomings one of these days! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YuRiPa (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 December 2006.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You expect me to assume good faith after all the hassle you put me through by removing my hard work information which i have to retrieve from scratch?? I have saw your original slate of article you so called started. I am appalled by the amount of sentences you used that is looselt referenced fromt he original article of venture republic, being fake and hypocritical does not move me. If not for the fact that other users has added in the information with best interests at heart, i would say that article would bland as possible. To be honest, i really cannot be bothered in complaining to ANI, cos you are not worth my time. Please refrain from communicating to me in future. YuRiPa 15:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:YuRiPa, please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Oden 13:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you know you just chastised yourself for making personal attacks, right? :P - CobaltBlueTony 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! That's what I get for using a template instead of writing my own comment. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers! --Oden 14:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article of Ownership[edit]

Hey, fair enough regarding about image positioning. But then again, Wikipedia is a page that everyone feels free to edit whichever to contribute to the best attributes to the articles. i know that you may think the article does not own by any of us, but what about other articles that has also placed their images differently then? You are taking about controversy over here, it is not a genuine case, I am sorry. I tend to see that you have conflicts with another user based on the fact that yiu delete his/her article and replace with your own. I find such practices uncomfortable when it comes to dealing with new online editors and i hope you refrain from doing such things in future. It kinda scares me in a way. ;) Shimmers77 15:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! --Oden 08:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can settle on the first statement regarding about manual styling.
  • Remember - just because you feel editing is a privilege doesn't give you the right to change and re-edit other user's works and abuse your privileges by bullying them. YuRiPa 09:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, your statement of saying the above statements is a reflection of you simply trying to overwrite people's comments. You really love to disagree with others don't you? Do assume good faith in contributing and do not put others down by changing the context of that article. Remember there are users out there who are more knowlegeable about the subject than you think you are. Shimmers77 09:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQ Girl Infobox[edit]

I appreicate you creating an infobox for this article, but i find that infobox too wide and can't you format it like a taxobox or something? Plus the terms of trademark and discontinued left blank is unecessary. Can't u insert only info that is necessary, putting blank terms is kinda wierd looking and make the article look very amateurish!Shimmers77 10:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to discuss article development on the article talk page. If template:Infobox Brand needs updating I would suggest enlisting the help of a editor with experience modifying infoboxes, try the Village Pump for instance.--Oden 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
template:Infobox Brand has been fixed--DataSurfer 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Balasingham[edit]

Hi Oden,

I did my edits to my best and hereafter I don't think so I could make anything for a neutral standing. Please take care of the article and the photo. It's because of your initial guidance only I started to develop a story based on the photo, which you have suggested.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

OK, I will take a look. --Oden 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oden,

One editor Lakiru is taking Asia Tribune for reference, which is a well-known pro Sri Lanka Government media, nobody knows even from where it is operating. They cities Tamilnet as pro-LTTE, then how the Asia Tribune can be NPOV.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

Hello. It is more usfeul if you post comments relating to article quality on the article talk page, that way all the editors who are monitoring that page can see the comments. Sincerely, --Oden 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Queen Maria of Romania[edit]

Hello, regarding Image:MS Regina Maria.JPG: The ORIGINAL image is a photo with autograph, taken on the 15 of October 1922; or later that month and year. I do not know the name of the ORIGINAL photographer. The present image is a photo of the original one, taken by Marius Amariei (around 1998, with the occasion of an exposition that took place at the National Museum of History of Romania). This image is a scanned one of the later. ES Vic 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editing other people's comments on my talk page[edit]

Hi Oden. I was wondering why you edited a comment left by another user on my talk page (Diff)? Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the article text contained a fair use image used out of article namespace (criterion 9 of the fair use criteria). I also did it because pasting the article text on five talk pages appeared to be a newbie mistake. Instead of just covering up the image I thought I'd hide the entire block of article text, but leave the comment regarding article improvement. --Oden 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the original comment but removed the fair use image. --Oden 19:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eed7224a23.jpg origin?[edit]

Thanks for the backup on the PUI page. I'm wondering how you found the image's origin? --MECU≈talk 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I tried a image search for "Özalan", the name of the person, but that drew a blank. So on a whim I tried searching for "Eed7224a23". I figured that a image name like that sounds fairly implausible for someone to name on purpose, so it might just be the same as the original. --Oden 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Singapore Girl infobox[edit]

Hello. So this sockpuppetry is getting worse and worse. I will be on a watch if this sockpupeteer goes around making ad-like edits. The Singapore Girl article has tons of advertisement and weasel words, we need to write it in a NPOV tone. We need to start using reliable sources, yes. Maybe my library has such stuff like old newspapers etc. I'm planning a rewrite for the main article, see here. Do work here if you want to. Regards Terence Ong 13:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Singapore Airlines article has the potential to become at least a good article. --Oden 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think it first needs a massive cleanup with a total removal of POV advertising-like text, some cleanup on recent events, some other older history events including things that happen in the 1970s or so. Hmm...what about the MSA times, should we add it in. Terence Ong 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that since the article on Singapore Airlines will be fairly long any subject (like Malaysia-Singapore Airlines]]) worth having a separate article on should be worked up on its own, and then a summary can be added (with proper sources) in the first article. --Oden 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wat Phra Dhammakaya[edit]

Foe about some section is not true, but someone who want to attack dhammakay, was writed this lied article. So I HOPE YOU ARE THE GOOD EDITER, AND JUST NOT BRING not true ARTICLE COMEBACK AGAIN. THANKS

I Deleted section because that's not true.It's lie by agitator.)

THANKS

philothai

The article text in question seems to be verfiable and from a reliable source. Remember that Wikipedia's articles have a neutral point of view and that content is not censored. Try to address the issue on the talk page. --Oden 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "not true ARTICLE" and the "neutral point of view" is not same ,You was tried to bring "not true ARTICLE" instead of "neutral point of view".

Because of Phrarajabhavanavisudhi is still be "Phra" and his monk's name was given by the King.

So I think you are lier and may be also is the gangs of attack dhammakaya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.55.43 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 December 2006.

  1. "lier" - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
  2. Anyone can make a statement to any effect, you need to have sources.
  3. "gangs" - there is no cabal. This assertion is common among POV-pushers.
  4. Article improvement is best discussed on the talk page. --Oden 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busybody Number One[edit]

I have it up to her with your constant heckling and harassment! Do not think just because you are Know-It-All, you can do whatever you want to block me nd bully other users online! You have been very annoying the past few days and instead of spending Christmas like a normal perosn, you chose to be a geek and a wacko to interchange and edit other people's articles. I will have you know i am not afraid of you and I do not care for you at all! You need to get a life! Not everything about Wikipedia is about you!!! You are really sickening and a real sore eye. Curse on you and may yhour computer have VIRUS and everything you owned is lost!!! 2007 will be a miserable wretched year for you cos losers like you will not come to any good end! Go ahead and block this account whatever you want!!! You'll regret it one of this day!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuReePa (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Non nobis solum. --Oden 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusation[edit]

I would appreciate it if you do not put the sockpuppetry tag on my user page? Juz who are you and who the hell is Yuripa? I get labelled a sockpuppeteer just because you think i revert the Singapore Girl article to previous page left by someone? That does not make you assume I am that user who is using another account. I did not know one can create multiple accounts. Stop putting the tag please. I am not that person ok. It is an act of vandalism. Jetcali 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YuRiPa (3rd). --Oden 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jetcali (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a puppet account for YuRiPa (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YuRiPa (3rd). --Oden 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kinda figured that, but I'm a big proponent of assuming good faith, so I went all out for him, you know? Words wasted on him, but might be useful for other future puppeteers. - CobaltBlueTony 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably did the right thing, and it seems your comments might have helped to defuse the sitation a little bit. --Oden 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversize fair use images[edit]

Hi, when you find a fair use image that is larger than web resolution, please tag it with {{fairusereduce}}. That puts it into Category:Fair use size reduction request, making images needing downsizing easier to find. Thanks! —Angr 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I recently discovered it. If you come across any image page where I have disputed the fair use assertion because of the image size I would be much obliged if you changed it to {{fairusereduce}}. --Oden 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far I've only come across it on images that I'm in the process of deleting for being replaceable anyway. —Angr 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst[edit]

To get a taste for my sense of humor, try this. Sometimes I can't help myself.[6] DurovaCharge! 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! --Oden 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:FLPC21112242212.jpg[edit]

Hi, I saw that you moved the tag there, I was wondering if you could help me find who deleted it so we can find a mutual solution. Just H 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Jeeva[edit]

Sorry, it took a while, he passed away sometimes in October of 2006. I dont know the date yet, but I will find it for you later. Also kudos for cleaning up some of those articles. Thanks RaveenS 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

007Moore[edit]

I replied and I even previously fixed the issue with it being the infobox (this took a whole 5 seconds). I believe you guys are being extremely finicky and unfair. It still being up for deletion based on your and his preference is absurd since as to my knowledge there is no criteria or policy that supports what your now saying. K1Bond007 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to my comment on your talk page (diff), see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Images which end up in the infobox are more often promotional images, which generally are unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have replaced Image:007Moore.jpg with Image:Roger Moore For Your Eyes.jpg which I located at the BBC website ([7]). In contrast to the image you uploaded which shows an apparent portrait of the actor the replacement image shows him holding a prop. Arguably this contributes more significantly to the article than the previous image. --Oden 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the infobox. As I've stated numerous times now, I accept there was a problem there, however, the image was since moved to the "James Bond" section of Moore's article so this is no longer a problem. What is the problem now? "Arguably contributes more" -- as I said you guys are being entirely too finicky. To say the promotional image of Moore that I had previously uploaded was not being used properly in the James Bond section is absurd as is the argument that one image of Moore in character is more significant than another. This seriously has been a waste of my time as you guys haven't showed me any reason why the image should be deleted beyond your own personal preference. Please don't reply back with another talk about use in the infobox. I get it. It's fixed. You put another in the infobox and the promotional one was moved. What was the problem with 007Moore being used in the Bond section of Moore's article -- this is where you jumped into the discussion, when the problem was already corrected. K1Bond007 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Tube Links[edit]

I am not sure what the complaints are against you tube links. They are commonplace and used everyday. I do not know what your standard of verifiability is. However, there are often links to very dodgy sources on this website. You tube provides cold hard evidence in links, and therefore is clearly more reliable than a lot of other sources. I can understand if we don't want you tube links directly in the page (possibly due to copyright issues). However, we shouldn't use citation checks when clear video evidence exists of a fact. Nlsanand 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:External_links#YouTube_and_related_discussions. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. --Oden 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but see, we know it's true. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that information from youtube is not true. Second of all, we know that youtube has its own copyright controls. I understand we don't want to put copyrighted information on the actual sites. But if verifiable information exists, there's no point in "covering our ears" saying it doesn'y exist to satisfy some legal decision which may or may not apply to us, when it clearly does with hard video evidence. Nlsanand 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use reduce[edit]

Hi, the image you tagged for Kara Thrace is approx 131kb which I thought was pretty small already. What is considered fair use acceptable? Caper13 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Image:Starbuck Season 3.jpg I don't know where the limit goes, but the image in question has a resolution of 918×1224 pixels, and the maximum preference that can be set is a width of 300 pixels for thumbnails (Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files#Embedding_internal_images). --Oden 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can compress the dimensions and keep the DPI set, which will actually produce a better in quality (albeit smaller in width and height) image if that will satisfy all. Caper13 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouettes Fair Use?[edit]

Were I to modify the two pictures which are fair use to be silhouettes, would that fall under fair use or user created images? Crisco 1492 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as long as you base the image on another copyrighted work your work is considered a derivative work. You have to construct the new image from scratch or start with a non-copyrighted image (like Image:BlankMap-World-v2.png). --Oden 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K, thanks. Only reason I ask is because that AT-AT in the Star Wars userbox doesn't seem very free use, but is still acceptable. Crisco 1492 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that, I will also be removing that image from the userbox. It shouldn't be very hard to draw a outline of a AT-AT. --Oden 10:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

Hi,

I kindly request here Jimmy Wales, Administrators and other senior editors to verify the good faith of the User:Nv8200p for placing AfD tag than "This article needs expansion" just two days after my controversial discussion for my community in the discussion page of Anton Balasingham. Rajsingam 11:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade

Kimbo Slice[edit]

This site is valdalized often, but you should not go overboard deleting link to the fan generated website at http://www.kimbofightvideo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.71.74.68 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 December 2006.

See article talk page. --Oden 15:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References (off-line media archives) on Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Rajsingam 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry[edit]

Good job with that article. I like it. ---J.S (T/C) 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Oden 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I came to say the same. It needed to be made, and I'm glad to find it no longer red-linked. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oden/Archive_2&oldid=1138977773"