User talk:Amalthea

Articles with topics of unclear notability Graph

I just spotted your posting from a few months ago. The graph looks great! I'd say "implement". Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, has that been four months already?
I have to fix one remaining issue with it (the number of months to show isn't automatically detected yet), but I guess I'll just do it then and move it to the category page afterwards. :)
It will probably take me a couple of days though.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be watching for it! --Stormbay (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wellcraft11

if you would please tell me where, in the wiki guidelines, it says that i can't use the "discussion" page of an article to discuss what i feel should be included, even if YOU don't like it, please enlighten me. i just went through the "about wiki" pages and i don't see a thing that says that my thoughts about what should be included in an article are any less important than yours. just because you don't agree with my point of view, that doesn't make my thoughts any less valid than yours. your close mindedness is not reason enough to delete my input from the DISCUSSION PAGE, as that page is intended to promote DISCUSSION about the article and what others feel should be included, not just what YOU feel should included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 November 2008

I've pointed you towards that guideline policy three times already. Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. [...] Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Amalthea^Talk 18:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

well....i didn't copyright the word "encyclopedia" then stick it on a t-shirt did i? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 November 2008

Thanks Amalthea

I think you are right that I can use pictures. And who are you? I would be happy to know new friend...I´m Milan from Czech Republic, student.--Wabak (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm Amalthea. I prefer to remain anonymous. :) --Amalthea^Talk 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Šāhzādé

Concerning this ...
User:Šāhzādé is a sockpuppet of User:Draco of Utopia, who is also User:Germany2008 and all these are really sockpuppets of User:Tajik. Tajik has changed his way or style of writing to fool admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirabono (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 November 2008

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik

OK. --Amalthea^Talk 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD G6 feedback appreciated

Your feedback is appreciated in the New "i12"? discussion on the rewording of G6. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

contact you here or on my talk page?

Dear Amalthea, On my talk page, you suggested that I contact you on your talk page, but here it appears that you want me to request a review on my talk page. I'm contacting you here because I'd appreciate a review of my Family and Children's Services of Central Maryland article before I open it up to all Wikidedians to review.

BTW, I love your Atheist statement. I didn't know such things existed in Wikipedia!

Although I've referred to Wikipedia for a long time, I'm learning much more about it now that I'm trying to write an article. It's harder than it looks!

Thanks, DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi.
In your case contacting me either here or at your page would have been fine since I had your user page watchlisted. I prefer to continue a discussion where it was started since it's easier to read. If you want to contact someone about a new issue it's usually best to go to their talk page directly, just like you did.
About your article, I've taken the liberty of moving it to another place into your userspace, to User:DebbieFeldmanJones/Family and Children's Services of Central Maryland. It will look more like when it's moved into article space there since the table of contents is already at the right place, you can (theoretically) work on more than one article in parallel by creating similar pages like User:DebbieFeldmanJones/My other article, and you can use your actual user page to put up a profile about you with those user boxes you seem to like. :)
I'll do some other minor changes to your article if you don't mind.

→ This explains why it looks so much more official now! Thanks DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest though that you find and add one or two additional references that can show why it is an important or notable organization, otherwise people might question its notability per our inclusion criteria and start a deletion discussion.

→ That's why I put in the reference and links to info about Mary Richmond, widely recognized as instrumental to the development of modern social work, who got her start at the Charity Organization Society. In fact, I also want to reference the Wikipedia article on Social Work, which notes: "In America, the various approaches to social work led to a fundamental question – is social work a profession? This debate can be traced back to the early 20th century debate between Mary Richmond's Charity Organization Society (COS) and Jane Addams's Settlement House Movement. The essence of this debate was whether the problem should be approached from COS' traditional, scientific method focused on efficiency and prevention or the Settlement House Movement's immersion into the problem, blurring the lines of practitioner and client.[10]" but I haven't yet figured out how to link directly to the quote, rather than to the beginning of the article. I will add others, too, but Mary Richmond is really a big name in the history of the profession, although not as famous as Jane Addams... At any rate, is this the sort of reference that meets the requirement of showing why it's a noteable organization? DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that it shouldn't be that hard considering that it was around since 1849.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, some thoughts:

Lead

"FCS addresses issues from birth through the end of life with a goal of helping each individual reach his or her highest potential."
Since this is one of the first things people will read, and since it sounds a bit like it could be from a promotional brochure, I would recommend rewriting that sentence, and if possible provide a reliable third-party reference for their goal(s).

→ Not sure what you mean by this. I understand that a claim to have helped each individual reach his/her highest potential needs third-party documentation. But this describes a goal, not a claim. How does one provide a third-party reference for a goal that has been determined from within the organization? DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Locations

"As of 2008 there are 13 FCS offices located in Baltimore City"
I changed your "Currently" to "As of 2008" here, I hope that's correct. Do you have a reference for that handy? It might make it much easier to keep it up to date in the future.
I like that you removed the list of office locations, I found them misplaced there too. If people are interested they should visit there official website.

History

It still needs to be proven that The Milton S. Eisenhower Library releases that article under the GFDL. At the moment, large parts are verbatim copies from [1], which says quite explicitly "Permission to publish material from this collection must be requested in writing from the Manuscripts Librarian, Milton S. Eisenhower Library". The affirmation by a librarian is not enough. I'd given you the two ways to do that on your talk page, if permission can't be obtained then it has to be rewritten from scratch, I'm afraid, to only include the information, but not the sentences.

I hope that helps a little.
Cheers, and Thanks, Amalthea^Talk 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and care you are putting into this entry. Your feedback is tremendously helpful.DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad I can help. I have a hard time writing myself, so I at least try to help those who will do a much better job.

Concerning your comments from above: You shouldn't reference the Wikipedia article directly (it's not a reliable source), but the source that's behind it. With that paragraph in Social work, I would add a link to the article in the "See also" section, and then use the source that is used there to support your point. You can easily link to specific sections in others articles ([[Wikipedia#Operation|like this]] → like this), and in principle also to a specific point, but the latter is not usually done.
Also, I'm actually no longer too concerned about the article not meeting the inclusion guideline after having a closer look at the history section and at the amount of news reports out there. What I would do is skim through the google news hits, read the promising ones, and if there's some information that should be or already is in the article, include a reference to that news article.
Lastly, if possible don't put your replies right in the middle of the comments you are replying to. It usually works great for e-mails, but it's not customary here. It tends to get really hard to figure out who said what if more than two people are talking with each other. :) --Amalthea 15:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea, This message was sent by Margaret Burri of the Eisenhower Library Special Collections to permissions@wikimedia.org on 12/2:
''I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of text of the finding aid for the Family and Children's Society Records: http://ead.library.jhu.edu/ms360.xml.

I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

2 December, 2008

Margaret N. Burri, MA, MLS Curator of Manuscripts and Librarian for History Milton S. Eisenhower Library Special Collections The Johns Hopkins University 3400 N. Charles St. Baltimore, Maryland 21218

... I know this because Ms. Burri forwarded the email to me. Does this meet the requirement?DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's very good, Creative Commons is a compatible license with the GFDL. I'll put the tag on the talk page, per Donating copyrighted materials.
I know that this can be an annoying requirement if you already had permission, but Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, which is also why there are so many guidelines and how-to pages about it. You wouldn't believe how many images alone are uploaded everry day where the uploader claims to hold copyright, so a very strict rule is necessary here to protect the copyright owners. --Amalthea 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about inserting my questions within your comments. You are right about it being confusing! So here's my question... You said above
you can (theoretically) work on more than one article in parallel by creating similar pages like User:DebbieFeldmanJones/My other article, and you can use your actual user page to put up a profile about you with those user boxes you seem to like. :)
What are the user boxes you referred to? Thanks, DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to {{User:Zx-man/Userboxes/Atheist}}, with regards to your "I love your Atheist statement. I didn't know such things existed in Wikipedia!". You can find out more about those at WP:Userboxes. --Amalthea 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would, by the way, recommend to move the page into article space rather quickly, otherwise the person handling the e-mail by Ms. Burri won't find the article in question, to mark it accordingly. --Amalthea 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Thanks for the warning. I'll do it just as soon as I figure out how -- too tired tonight. I will do it tomorrow for sure.DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

using real name as signature?

Dear Amalthea, I'm beginning to see evidence of hostility and aggression amongst Wikipedians, and I'm wondering if using my real name was a wise idea. Is there a way for me to take my name off Wikipedia altogether and replace it with something less personal? Thanks. DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change the name of your account you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username and request it, however it would still be possible to trace it back to your original one. If you are concerned about your privacy then you can always permanently retire your current account, and create a new one. There are many high-profile users who use or have announced their real names though, so it's really up to you. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, I don't expect to work on controversial topics that might generate hostility. But if by chance I did set off an unbalanced person, my name is a one-of-a-kind and I could be found and easily tracked right down to my phone and address. So I guess it's wise to get rid of it to the extent I can do so. Questions: If I retire my current account, would I lose the FCS article I've been working on? If so, could I copy the article as it currently exists and use it to start a new one? Wouldn't I lose the history of what it took to get it to its current point? And if I did, would that be a problem for reviewers? Thanks, DebbieFeldmanJones (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see two options: You could either "finish" the article and move it into article space with your current account, or you could copy the article now, have it deleted in your user space, and then recreate it with your new account. I hereby release my contributions to it into the public domain, so there won't be any GFDL issues, which means keeping the history is not really necessary.
I guess you have to balance your wish to be credited for that article with your paranoia, since if you touch the article with your new account at some point in the future it is of course possible, if not particularly likely, to make the connection to your old account. :) --Amalthea 15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Started at WT:CSD, WP:AN, WP:IfD, User talk:Soundvisions1
Just to inform you that I made a long detailed reply to your question at IfD on the A.P image. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, thanks. And literally laughed out loud when I saw the length of that reply. :)
Well, that's why it took me a while longer to reply, I was at the time still thinking (and starting to agree with) Calliopejen1 answer. I still find WP:NFC#2 incredibly vague; "a manner that is likely to replace the original market role" could be argued to apply to every CD and single cover as well: it's used by the production company to illustrate the single, and we are using it the same way.
Nonetheless, I think I see now why it can't be used. I found the comment at {{Non-free historic image}} to be quite good: "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be in a transformative nature, only used when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."
Again, thank you for that long answer. I'm not quite sure I agree with you on all of it, though, which plays into the next issue with the Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg you found. I concur with what Calliopejen1 said on your talk page about it, by the very nature of fair use it ignores the terms of the copyright holder. They explicitly allow the use of Image:TrangBang.jpg, but I'm very sure that e.g. Image:Tianasquare.jpg and Image:Nguyen.jpg can still be clearly used here in a context that is describing the image itself and the reaction to it, and not only the event. In contrast, it would not be possible to give a similar rationale for Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg. I'm unhappy that the line is so blurry though, and will watch WT:NFCC for a while to hopefully get a clearer picture.
Cheers, Amalthea 04:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:PR African Poster.JPG and Image:PR Chinese Poster4.jpg:

Hello and thank you for your message. As creator and owner of the posters I released them for PD use in Wikipedia and as so have taken full responsibility for there content. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

→ Consolidated discussion at User_talk:Marine_69-71, where it started. --Amalthea 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• O.K., Thank you for all that you have done. Will take care of situation. Cheers! Tony the Marine (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there. Seeing you around quite often, I wondered, have you ever considered adminship and if so, why haven't you requested it yet? Regards SoWhy 14:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm flattered that you think I might be suitable candidate. :)
I have certainly considered it, but couldn't push myself to actually go ahead and do it so far. I think I could be more useful with the extra buttons, but am a bit worried about going through the RfA. Being questioned or attacked by vandals, or by fellow editors for things that I've actually done wrong is one thing. Being questioned or attacked grilled in an RfA by a quorum of editors I respect is not something I'm looking forward to, in particular because I'm an even more useless content creator than Aervanath or you are, and I've read your RfAs (no insult intended, but you said so yourselves:)).
Cheers, Amalthea 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Content creation is important, but I think most people agree that we need WikiGnome admins as well (see the current RfA of Wehwalt, a pure content creator which gets opposes because of that). There are always people who will oppose because the candidate has a different philosophy than they have. And hey, I passed my RfA with ~90% in support and most of the opposes were about that userbox thingie and only 5-6 were about me not being a great content creator. So I'd say if that's your only concern, you'll do fine.

Your thoughts are mine, that's why I asked. I, too, think that you could be more useful with the extra buttons and it shouldn't be a big deal to get them.

But it's your (wiki-)life of course so I understand if you do not want to face the grilling but if you ever consider it, leave me a note and I'll help you as much as I can (or you can think about admin coaching to get you RfA-ready although I personally never thought it something you need). Have a nice day :-) SoWhy 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I will get back to you with that sooner or later, but I'll give myself more time till I try. Definitely not this year. And I'm not going to do any coaching, if I'll ever get interested in areas where I don't feel confident I'll know what to read, who to ask and who to watch, and to stay away until I do feel confident.
Again, though, thanks for your nice words, I really appreciate it! Cheers, Amalthea 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Amathea, I've actually been reviewing your edits for the past hour or two with the same thought in mind, why aren't you an admin? You have a great demeanor and a clean talk page. I'm impressed that you leave a lot of the criticism on your page, but it still doesn't look bad. Everything I see I like. That being said, I think you are wise not to run for admin right now. I think you need to do a little with content building---especially in the current mood of the RFA process. Wehwalt's RfA is probably going to fail and Aevernanth barely passed. Right now content building is at a premium... That being said, if you were to work on content building... and it doesn't take much... I would be honored to nom ya. Heck, I would be willing to consider it without the content building, but you'd have to convince me that you were up for a tough RfA---and based upon your comments above, I don't think you are. I think you have all of the tool necessary to be an admin, you just haven't checked the "box" that says article builder.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad I am not the only one who thought that. But by the time I posted here, Wehwalt's RfA had only 3 opposes, now there are 12. But I think it will pass and if not, it's just a proof that content builders fail as well. Balloonman is correct of course, a bit of content building does not hurt much. I created at most 100 articles in more than four years[2] and half of them at least are now gone, merged or deleted (as I created many episode articles, which is not liked anymore). So pick something where you miss content and add a bit of content, it's not hard and sometimes it's fun ;-)

If you look at Wehwalt's or my RfA, you will notice that most opposes are about things other than too little or too much content building, so I still think you can pass RfA at the moment. But Balloonman has more experience than me so I will acknowledge that he might be correct. Anyway, the point is still correct - you would make a fine admin and whenever you decide to run, I'd be happy to co-nominate you. :-) SoWhy 11:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the community is very much into the notion of having a few articles under one's belt... especially right now. It is a notion that I typically agree with, but am willing to overlook on occassion. But when it comes to vandal fighters, it is hard to overlook. Vandal fighters/CSD'ers are the area where the most harm can be done, thus there has to be some subsinative article building. That's a position that I typically agree with, sometimes you can make exceptions (aeveranth for example) but that barely passed and I suspect that I used up a fair amount of my capital in getting that one pushed through.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, Balloonman! I knew that I'd have to approach you at some point since you are one of the more outspoken critics of my kind of editor, so it's me who is honored that you did so on your own. Thank you.
And thank you, SoWhy, for your offer, too. :)
A tough RfA, Balloonman, wouldn't drive me away from Wikipedia if that's what you're worried about. It's just, as I said, not something I'm looking forward to, when I fully expect opposition questioning my constructivity or my empathy with content builders by editors I resepect. And you were actually at the top of the list of editors I had in mind there. :)
I fully understand that RfA likes to see more firsthand creation of content than what I can offer. I'm not even excluding myself there; someone who works in the deletion areas should show that they are still here to work constructively, even though this project needs maintainers just as much as builders at this point.
I would like to think that my edits, in a way, show that already, even though I can't point to one particular article. E.g., I recently helped editors Bonnie Khan and DebbieFeldmanJones for a while with their first articles (on their talk pages and above). All I've done is trivial compared to what's expected though: plain content. I can try and create an article from scratch (no promises at this point), but I won't be doing it to tick any boxes, but rather alleviate a concern that I might have with myself in an RfA. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the fun/challenge of building the encyclopedia is that others will come along and bombastardize your creations. They will add content and make changes that you don't like. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. They will add tags that you disagree with and maybe even criticize the wisdom of the person making the article. But all of that goes towards what people at RfA are looking for. My advice: 1) create articles from scratch and get them on as a DYK and to GA status if possible. 2) Take an existing article/stub, and help improve it. One of my coachees showed that he wasn't the typical CSD'er. He would perform CSD/NPP work, but whenever he saw an article that he thought had promise, he would stop his CSD/NPP work and work on the article. He'd add links/references. He'd increase the bulk of the article and prove it worthy of keeping. This often landed him at AFD because the article would be tagged for deletion while he was working on it. But it showed that he wasn't the stereotypical CSD'er and it gave him a body of work to show, "See I do know what it feels like." The other nice thing is that if you save articles from CSD, then you can submit them to DYK. If you think you'd have a problem coming up with ideas, this might be a valid way to find ideas. Get some experience in building articles and your RfA should be fine.

Amathea, I do think you'd be a great admin... and we need more admins like you in the CSD arena. I do hope that you take these thoughts and try to build some content... I'd love to look you over again in a month!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that does sound like fun ...
I remember translating a German article once to make a substub I found during NPP into a stub, and that already took me ages. But we'll see. I might invoke WP:SNOW on the GA status though. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you even took articles you found via CSD to start class, it would be a significant distinguisher for you against your peers.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My First Article

Well, lo and behold, My First Article: ^*_**→ Johanna Wokalek ←*_*^*
I've admittedly chosen a rather easy topic. But I gotta give it to you, Balloonman and SoWhy, this was actually far more exciting then I thought it would be. And I've only just moved it to article space, so nobody has even seen it yet!

Potential Hooks for WP:DYK:

• ... that Johanna Wokalek, who portrayed Red Army Faction terrorist Gudrun Ensslin in the Golden Globe nominated The Baader Meinhof Complex, was Klaus Maria Brandauer's student?

Could also be shortened to:

• ... that Johanna Wokalek portrayed Red Army Faction terrorist Gudrun Ensslin in the Golden Globe nominated The Baader Meinhof Complex?

Or something different:

• ... that Johanna Wokalek had to tonsure her hair for her role as the female Pope Joan?

Not sure yet which one I'll present there, or if I'm allowed to propose several alternatives at once.

Regarding GA:

well written

Hmm. As well as I can. I'm not sure if I want to bug other editors to copyedit it now, I guess I could just leave it like it is and lure some editors to it via DYK (assuming I can accomplish that). I think the structure is good, and it follows the MOS.

factually accurate and verifiable

Yes and yes.

broad in coverage

This article is as broad as it can be, at this point. I've left out her more minor appearances, but all career cornerstones are in the article. She is very private about her personal life, and while I've figured out e.g. the name of her father she quite explicitly does not want those details become widely known, and as of today they aren't widely known, so I can't add anything there to the article.

neutral in point of view

Yes

stable

Of course, it's new.

and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses

That's a tough one. I haven't found a free image, and while I've sent e-mails to two organizations who own an image and might be willing to give it away I haven't heard back from them yet. Depending on where the premiere of her next film is I might be able to snatch one myself, but that's gonna be a while.

Huh, but actually, since the missing image is "not a failing criterion", all that needs more work according to the rules is the "clear prose". Besides my bad grammar, I keep putting too much information in too short sentences, pure facts without anything to flesh them out, which makes for rather heavy reading.
In any case, I have a hard time judging just how much work it really needs. What do you guys think?

So, have I learnt anything that would prove useful in case I became an admin one day? Probably, not sure yet. Since the fun's only going to start once other editors are starting to take it apart, or start tagging the multitude of stubs I am going to create now to turn all those red links blue, I'll delay judgement on that.
But it was still a good idea. In fact, it was probably such a good idea that I think every prospective admin should spend at least a day on the other side of the fence, be it building articles, or patrolling new pages and recent changes.

So next stop: Turn all those red links blue, since each one leads to a notable topic. Aargh. How do you close this thing again?

Amalthea 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Agree or disagree, one thing is clear - you rock. Is there a "you rock" Barnstar? If there is give it to yourself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, wait till you read my comment where I disagree with you once more. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 16:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I already did, and responded. I really don't mind civil discussions where we have different view points. It is how we keep learning, not "we" as in you and I, I mean "we" as in the world. I may come off as an asshole at times but I seriously do try to keep my personal viewpoints mostly out of topics about discussions on policy or guidlines. But exceptions are when it is a policy based on the real world law. <opinon>In those discussions I think uses of the phrase "Instruction creep" should, for the most part, not be used because laws are all about being specific. I think many editors also believe that but are hampered because so many like to "assume good faith" for everything, and, in doing so, deduct any "instruction creep" as not assuming good faith. I have said it to you before, I have said it to others; that asking for information, or for clarification, on something that may be a potential copyvio is not assuming bad faith, it is being safe.</opinon> LOL. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you don't. I think our fundamental difference of opinion is based on that I am willing to give anything but the most clear cut copyright violation a chance (i.e. IfD or some delayed SD), because:

• It's not hurting the copyright owner. Highly suspicious images can and should, in my opinion, be removed from the article(s) right away, right along with the nomination for deletion, so they are no longer readily visible, thus it doesn't cost the copyright owner anything.
• It's not hurting Wikipedia, since the WmF isn't in legal trouble as long as they react to takedown notices right away (at least that's how I understand it - only the uploader is in potential trouble)
• It limits the BITEiness towards the uploader, so it hurts Wikipedia less in the long run

Because of that I'm very hesitant to extend I9 in any way. It has worked OK so far, and should there be any real legal jeopardy I'm sure User:MGodwin will make himself heard, and force us to handle it more conservatively. --Amalthea 19:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi, The image that i uploaded on Pandit Jasraj article has been tagged for deletion for lack of sources. I've taken this picture myself with my mobile phone and have given creative commons license on it. what else should i do to protect it from deleting. It is difficult to get pictures that can be used on Wikipedia. And this is what is happening with the ones who have authored them. Pls look into this matter. Cheers! Randhir 07:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• As I said to the same question on my talk page please take a moment and read the Mini How-To guide and use the template provided. It is best to use this type of formating for image information in order to provide details on the image, the source and the photographer. If the foundation ever releases a book this information assures proper attribution as well as as accurate details on the image's subject. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've added the {{Information}} template to it, which is usually used on images for a brief overview. See also the Mini How-To guide Soundvisions left above. Could you look it over and add the date you took it, if you remember? A rough date is enough if you are unsure. Thanks, Amalthea 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD TAG

→ User talk:Dekisugi#Best basketball player in the world