User talk:Tannin/150715: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:21, 7 October 2007

Proposed project: OS Development

Hey Tannin

I have recently put in a proposal for a project on OS Construction at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development

I currently trying to rack up support for this project (your one of the first people I have spoken to), and I noticed you have edited some OS related articles, and I am wondering if you would be interested in the project?

Jamie

Jatos 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brolga.jpg

I think this image looks great; you sure you don't have it in better resolution? Also, you should consider licensing it under a free license, I think (even though I just reverted someone who applied the GFDL tag to the page from seeming frustration). ✏ Sverdrup 02:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sverdrup. Thankyou. Of course I have the image in a higher resolution. However, there is zero chance that I'll upload a high-res version now that there seems to have been a policy decision taken to require all uploads to be GFDL - and thus be open slather for the scumbags who profit from those Wikipedia clones you see all over the Internet. With a very small number of exceptions, the images I choose to release are licenced for non-commercial use without modification. Unless and until the powers that be at the Wikipedia see fit to take a more relaxed and broad-minded view of image licences, I don't intend to upload any more of them.

Neutrality has no excuse for his "frustration": if I give you $10 does that give you the right to be frustrated and take $20 out of my wallet? Of course not. If N doesn't like the terms under which I released my images, then he is free not to use them (and if he feels that does not fit with the new Wikipedia policy, he is free to delete them). It is entirely unacceptable for a user to insert false material in an image description.

Thanks again, Tannin 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

copyright

Hi. I would like to use Image:Seagate-ST-412-l.jpg under the CC-By-SA-2 licence. Are you the copyright owner? Can you relicense this photo? I will use it on my site. Thanks, answer to my talk page. It's a great pic.

Image:ATS80-HD.jpg

I've taken the liberty of tagging Image:ATS80-HD.jpg as a GFDL image - my presumption is that this was your intention in uploading it to the wikipedia. If that was not your intention then please retag it. You'll find a list of tags here. Could I ask you also to consider tagging any other images you've uploaded. FWIW, I think the Spotting Scope image /is/ a good photo. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Image:Red-necked Stint.jpg

Hi Tannin - these Image:Red-necked Stint.jpg are Lesser Sandplovers! I've just removed the pic from Red-necked Stint after someone on Birdforum pointed out the error :-) - MPF 20:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Glad to get you an extra tick! I'll add the pic at LSP - MPF 22:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bushland.jpg

The Image Sleuths have had a hard time finding the source of Image:Bushland.jpg and we were hoping you could help us out. Thanks! Nrbelex ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Steel

Hello from one long-time contributor to another! I saw your note on this article, after I decided it was worth the effort to nominate it at WP:FAC, & thought you might like to add your two cents (Australian or US). -- llywrch 04:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eurocopter Tigers

I didn't do the original deletion but it is the Army that has ordered them.[1] Grant65 (Talk) 11:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Solar greenhouse (technical)

Hi - I have done a rewrite on Solar greenhouse (technical) in hopes of defusing an ongoing edit war. Assuming the war is on hold for a bit, I'm seeking advice and input from a few editors, and would like you to take a look and offer comments or criticisms. Let me know if I'm on track or not. Thanks, Vsmith 16:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeti images

Hi Tannin. Sorry if this is too much trouble while you are busy with things other than wikipedia.

I saw that you took part in the vote ar Talk:Yeti on which image to have at Yeti. Two of the choices were Image:Yeti5.jpg and Image:Newbug.jpg. Are these images drawn by User:Lizard King (as I assumed from the discussion at Talk:Yeti)? If so, do you have any idea what license those are under (e.g. if he had mentioned that in some talk page or something, or was it the case that those days images not marked as fair-use and not found to be copyvios were considered GFDL?)? In the absence of licensing info. these images would get deleted. Thanks for any info. -- Paddu 22:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I ask you since User:Lizard King also seems to be on a wikivacation. -- Paddu 22:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. BTW you could use the "+" button at the top (if you use the default monobook skin) or the "Post a comment" link in the sidebar (for the earlier default standard skin & probably others) to append your comments to a talk page without editing the entire page (that could be huge). More at Wikipedia:Section#Editing of individual sections. -- Paddu 05:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can alter the prefs so edit links aren't shown, but you can do section editing by rightclicking the section title. HTH. -- Paddu 11:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

patagonian cavy

A glorious photo. I was sure it was from a nature service... where was it taken?

Also, why is this glorious photo of a mara not used in any articles? Was there some argument about its copyright status? +sj + 07:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hello, Tannin. Could you please stop editing the musk ox page to capitalize the name of the animal? Perhaps English is not your native language, but it is not customary to capitalize nouns unless they are proper names or occur at the beginning of sentences. Furthermore, when such nouns are capitalized, only the first letter in a compound word is capitalized. (Thus, "Musk ox" instead of "Musk Ox", and "Ice cream" instead of "Ice Cream".) Thanks! —Psychonaut 09:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cockatoos

I'm well aware that you are very much my senior in Wikipedia, but even so, I do not believe that it is too bold to ask on what basis you consider cockatoos to be a seperate family of parrots? I ask this because no other source I have seen distinguishes cocktoos in this way. The only type of parrot that I have ever seen distinguised by more than genus or avicultural common name are the brush tongues, and even that is very uncommon.

By the way, cute pictures. Do you do photography for a living? --Quintucket 03:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Tony,

Just to let you know that you photo Image:Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg is coming up for reuse as Pic of the Day on the 23rd April. I've used the same caption as last time, but you can check it at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 23, 2005. -- Solipsist 21:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zoltarak

Hi Tannin. Recently you were in contact with --Zoltarak. He's been blocked for "intent to start vandalism." He's contacted me (we share a computer at school) and asked me to come here and try to get you guys to reverse the block. For one, it appears there's been a misunderstanding. Someone on his "talk" page claims he's vandalized the "vfd" which he never did. He was also reverted for stuff he did at the sandbox, which is supposed to not happen, as I understand it. By the way, this is an awesome site! Do you need a valid email address to make an account? I'm at school now and don't have access to my email. Thanks, and please reconsider the block on Zoltarak.

Cricket

Hi. You commented on the move of the cricket portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schools

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Schools - this is an effort to reach consensus (or at least, compromise) through discussion, rather than voting. And it seems to be succeeding. R adiant _* 14:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

So why?

Why delete the page Port Arthur theories with no explanation, as an act of deliberate vandalism? Why did you do it? 203.26.206.129 06:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I merged all the useful, verifiable, and NPOV content with the main article, then redirected to there. It is important to keep Wikipedia balanced, and to report fairly and honestly, basing articles on verifiable facts. Tannin 06:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you such a vandal of truthful, honest, reporting? What truth are you trying to stop from being reported? Why do you feel the need to stop 100 hours of research due to a spur of the moment decision? And what right do you have to commit such an act of vandalism?

Thylacine

The first letter of thylacine does not need to be capitalized if it is not at the start of a sentence. See [2] for an example of this. Also, Tasmanian wolf and Tasmanian tiger should be bolded at the beginning of the article, as they are redirects to this page. Crotalus horridus 23:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about confusion between scientific and common names are well taken. I've seen legitimate sites use both methods. If you feel strongly about capitalizing the first letter of Thylacine, I will not change that back again. I do, however, feel that Tasmanian wolf and Tasmanian tiger should be bolded for the reasons listed above. Crotalus horridus 02:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic request

Hi Tannin - not sure if you look in on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Request for images, but I've had a request out for some time for photos of Callitris (preferably wild!), which remains unfulfilled - any chance you could get pics? - Thanks, MPF 11:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant thanks! The Kew Checklist of Conifers lists C. gracilis as a synonym of C. preissii - MPF 14:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - yes, this one's an obvious C. verrucosa! - MPF 14:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC) PS can you tell if all these from my cone collection are correctly identified?[reply]

Port Arthur theories

hi Tannin, I think that the best way to deal with this dubious and highly contentious article, is to put it up on vfd rather than unilaterally redirecting it. cheers, clarkk 08:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Request_for_arbitration has been opened on user Internodeuser -- Longhair | Talk 10:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for sending me that little note. Most of it is already covered, but it isn't patent nonsense, since that implies a complete lack of cohesion. It was readable, and thus, not patent nonsense. As to the accuracy of the material, I have virtually no knowledge on the subject, and thus I refrained from voting. Scimitar 22:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cricket

User:ABCD closed the VfD - and there was a discussion on IRC following - which led to Wikipedia:Portalspace being created and discussed and an agreement that the page should stay on Portal:Cricket for the time being. Kind regards, jguk 11:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queen

Thanks, Tony! I pretty well said as much in reply to a comment of Matt Crypto's but nobody seems to have noticed. Pete 12:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uwe kils

thank you, Tannin, my students used only reproducable sources - it was an exercise, and they are very disappointed that michael did not even look into the sources

uwe with students

Thank you again for your support - we love your many photos of birds and your input for the bird pages. I work now as a volunteer in a wildlife refuge Forsythe Refuge and am using the wikipedia bird pages a lot - excellent and a big help for us - Aren't you willing to become a cooperator with a real name? UK 68.46.71.104 01:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safer sex vs. safe sex

I see you're merging safer sex into safe sex; I've just done the reverse! I'll stop editing now, lest we step on one another's edits. -- 80.168.226.10 10:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heyas, good work on the merging project of Safer sex/Safe sex. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Diamond

your comment on my talk page and my response:

Your talk about "repeated insults" is crap and you know it. Please withdraw your unwarranted personal attack on me immediately. Tannin 19:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it's pretty clear from the talk page you've levelled a number of insults at the Diamond page, in a number of separate edits, and I even quoted them for you. If you don't think "mish-mash", "mockery", "scars of subdivision", "hacked about" etc. are insults, I'm not sure what I can help you with. You probably just don't like that I'm calling you out for being off base. As previously mentioned, you could have said the same thing with much less venom, and been more effective. Those insults support a claim of rudeness pretty well I'd say. I've been known to be wrong before though - Taxman ^Talk 20:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You are flat-out wrong. An "insult" is directed at a person. At no time have I insulted you, or any other contrbutor to this page. Please remove your groundless accusations. Tannin 21:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a rather strange reading of the meaning of the word insult, many of the definitions do not require the insult being levelled directly at a person. Besides, clearly many of your descriptions of the page's writing and editing could be considered as insults to the page authors too. Think of "mockery" and "hacked about", can't you see how that is basically saying the authors have no talent and no ability to write a FA? The authors are human too, and have feelings, and have worked very hard on that article. I suggest you re-read all of your comments, as if you were not involved at all, as if you didn't write them. Or try reading them as if they were directed at a page you wrote. Based on how little tolerance you have for my comments about your writing, I'd be surprised if you couldn't see how harsh and innapropriate your comments were. Or saddenned, because if you couldn't see how harsh and innapropriate your comments were at all, that would mean you have a complete lack of ability to empathize and understand how your writing comes across to others. I suppose that is possible, but I doubt it, so like I said take a step back and think about how your comments have come across. Further, you've still made no effort to offer specifics on what can be improved on the Diamond page itself, which if you were actually trying to help anything, you would be doing instead of spending more time discussing your past criticisms of the article. - Taxman ^Talk 11:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Australia Image

Hi, could you let me know when you choose a landscape image for Australia. I would like it looking good before I list it for FAC. The text is more or less done at last. Thanks --nixie 02:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfossilized dinosaur bones

This page has not been deleted yet, even though it was listed eleven days ago and has received 19 delete votes, 2 merge votes, and 0 keep votes. Shouldn't it have been taken care of after five days? If this is indeed the case, will you please step in and delete it? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 23:09, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Image licences

Hello, I'm here to try and seek agreement. As you know the goal of wikipedia is to create a freely distributable encyclopedia, and for that reason the terms of use of wikipedia require that all eligible contributions be licenced under the GFDL.

Now many of your images are listed as being cc-nd-nc licence. I understand from reading your talk page that you have your reasons for this, but you realise that non-free licences hurt the goal of wikipedia. Moreover you are in violation of the terms of use. So I am looking for you to agree to relicence under the gfdl.

The pictures of the birds make me drool with envy, so I really want to do all I can to stop them from being deleted. (I'll be watching this page, so please reply here)

Zeimusu | (Talk page) 08:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi to all above. Sorry if I've been slow to reply. I'm very tied up with some other projects right now and haven't had a chance to stop in of late. (And won't until things slow down a little in a week or so.)

Zeimusu, thankyou for your query, and the spirit of cooperation in which you frame it.

I'm going to take issue, however, with one of the terms you used. This business of calling licences which allow free distribution and encourage practical, socially useful re-use, and disallow re-use for naked commercial sleaze and greed (such as can be found in any of the numerous Wikipedia look-alike parasite sites, for example) "non-free" is unacceptable. It is a popular and common debating trick used here, but it is just that: a debating trick. In many ways, a non-commercial free distribution licence is more free than the GFDL. The term non-free is bandied around here a lot, and the way it is used would not last 2 minutes on a normal article page: someone would (quite properly) revert it as a violation of our NPOV.

You are right in saying that a non-free licence would "hurt the goals of the Wikipedia". Having quality material available for the general good at zero cost through a free licence such as CC-NC is a very worthwhile goal indeed. Having that same material hijacked by commercial interests to be corrupted in the service of greed is not a socially beneficial aim.

Now, with language issues clarified, to the meat of your query.

I had no part in the recent decision by the Wikipedia management group to insist on GFDL images and GDFL images only, and I disagree very strongly with it. The decision was, in my view, short-sighted and a major mistake. However, I recognise that my view is a minority view, and that there is no realistic possibility of the policy being changed anytime soon.

I am afraid that there is no possibility of me relicensing my images to allow commercial use. Rather against my better judgement, I do sometimes release a selected image or two under the GFDL, but these are exceptions and clearly marked as such.

If the decision makers here are indeed determined to only host GFDL images, then there is nothing I can do about that except attempt to persuade them to see the error of their ways (as I am doing here in this post, and have done elsewhere).

Wikipedia is very welcome to use my images under the licence terms I attached to them (in most cases, CC non-commercial). If those terms do not suit the Wikipedia decision makers, then they are equally free not to use my images. That seems to me to be a fairly simple either/or decision.

Naturally, I hope that the decision makers apply some common sense and continue with the present arrangement, but if they are determined to enforce this new-fangled GDFL-only rule, then deletion is the only other alternative. I think that would be a shame, but I also understand that if this GDFL-only policy is really what the decision makers want, then there is no other solution and I will not oppose it.

Best regards,

Tannin 13:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed reply at a busy time. I'm not going to do anything rash, like dumping all these images onto ifd, but eventually, unless policy changes, these images are going to have to be removed from the database. If they are, I'd really like them to be available somewhere. I urge you to examine other options (such as Flickr).

Like I said I'm not about to start deleting everything, but please refrain from uploading cc-nc-nd images for the time being. As a first step, I've requested that Image:Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg lose its Featured picture status. I hope this will focus a few minds without changing anything irreversibly.

Sorry to contribute to your wikistress! I really value your images as well as your other contributions to wikipedia, both as an administrator and content creator.

Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm was just dropping by to let you know that User:Zeimusu has nominated your photo Image:Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg for delisting as a featured picture, but I see the discussion is already established.

I'm now thinking I might be behind the times. Is it really the case the Wikipedia only accepts GFDL images now? {cc-by-sa} is still in the acceptable free-use images section of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and the Commons certainly does. They've even managed to get a sensibly worded notice on the upload page (the one on En-Wikipedia has always been foolish and self-contradictory).

Now {cc-by-nc} and other non-commercial use licenses became deprecated in April 2004. So I can see why we would want to actively encourage users who still have contributions under non-free/non-commercial license to relicense under a less restrictive license, but to say that otherwise such users are 'in violation of the terms of use' seems to be coming on a bit strong.

Tannin, I admire your stance against the deprecation of non-commercial licenses whilst also encourage you to reconsider. I myself am torn on the matter. A lot of UK government images are crown-copyright and so effectively non-commercial or even more restricted, and so are generally eneligible for use. It is also much easier to persuade 3rd parties to release images under a non-commercial license. As a result I've noticed an excess of US-Gov images which can introduce an unfortunate bias. I'm not particularly in favour of the commercial Wiki-clones either.

On the other hand, I'm also aware of how genuinely free license allow unexpected things to happen. One of the cited examples is that printed versions of Wikipedia will most likely need to be commercial - and this will probably the easiest way to distribute information to people without internet connections. I'm not really sure whether there is greater benefit to be had from possible future uses under free-use licenses, compared to the more immediate loss of non-commercial material - and that is why I am conflicted.

In any case the proposed delisting of Image:Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg from FeaturePicture on licensing grounds is relatively clear-cut under the current guidelines for WP:FPC. So unless it were relicensed I would expect it to become delisted without opposition. Whatever you decide to do on licensing I would still thank you and admire our contributions. -- Solipsist 19:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current policy seems to be: On en, PD, GFDL and true fair use images are allowed. On Commons: PD, cc-by-sa, other licences in the same "spirit" (not non commercial or no derivs) and gfdl. Other wikis have various policies, many disallow fair use. (The fair use policy seems inconsistant, as implicit in fair use is non-commercial use only.) WP:ICT probably needs to be updated. None of the core wiki projects currently allow non commercial images. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 16:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I guess this discussion is closed for now, and I will have to proceed with delisting this photograph from Featured Pictures.

Tannin, I hope this isn't too much of a concern for you, and I would be interested in hearing your views on whether Wikipedia's current image use policy is deficient. -- Solipsist 22:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

krill

hallo Tannin! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

thank you everybody

I would like to express my thanks to everybody helping in the nomination of Antarctic krill. I think 3 1/2 supports and a long long discussion are an unexpected and great outcome for a critter so remote and unknown - you should see how little and poor Antarctic krill is represented in Encarta and Britannica - this is the best reviewed and resourced general article of krill we know of - it is impossible to fullfill all wishes at the same time - this is what we did with our all product peer review stamp to qualify this stage of the article for academic exercises, especially for our dreams of a Virtual university within Wikiversity - good luck to you all Uwe Kils 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

here is a new picture I donated in high resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Krilleyekils Uwe Kils 03:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Australian animals

I just read your excellent list of extinct Australian animals, nice work. Do you think it would be worth creating a list of endangered Australian animals? Also I've come across some of your images that are on an old cc tag that basically means they could be deleted , like those on Quokka do you want me to change them to another licence?--nixie 04:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from uwe

hallo tannin - glad you liked the amazing critter - we do everything to promote thys mystic organism - the image of Antarctic krill was the first critter ever cruising the web, hatching from my NeXT - isn't it amazing that we can now create cooperative across the globe - hallo to Australia (send me an email with your real name, please) Uwe Kils 13:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perth Park Image

Hello Tannin. You attatched the suburban park image to the Perth article (here), but the location of the park remain a mystery. Perhaps if you thinks it's not necessary to put the location in the caption, could you add it to the image Talk page? --Commander Keane 16:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

eel pages

hallo Tannin! I contacted some eel experts, got some material, will help on the eel pages next days - Uwe Kils 13:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

response from London

Uwe wants to share this with you (from his talk page):

Hello Kils

Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me. Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good. I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.

Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).

Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that feels good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill

did you see who gave the picture of the day? take care Uwe Kils 23:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

did you see how much they like the mystic critter now - thanks again and best greetings Uwe Kils 00:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mammalian activity

Happened to notice you zipping around in various marine mammal articles recently... have you been bumping your contributions back up again? Or is it just that I have suddenly started noticing? Either way, good to see your name in my watchlist! Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 09:50 (UTC)

Fern pic

Hi Tannin - can you identify this one? My best guess is Blechnum nudum - MPF

Incorrectly named photos

Hi Tannin, Sorry about that, have uploaded renamed images. How do get a photo deleted? --Fir0002 July 1, 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about your comings and goings

I noticed you were bonking heads with User:Arnejohs a little bit. I'm afraid I rather threw my toys out of the pram with him the other day over at Talk:Whale song. He seems to hold me personally responsible for the unfortunate naming of various cetacea groupings in English, despite my best efforts to point him in the direction of resources that confirm what I've said. There is probably an underlying current of him thinking me a whale-hugger (to go alongside all whale-huggers thinking me a whale-clubber, such is the life of an NPOV citizen :). In short, good luck with all of that! :) Pcb21| Pete 3 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

LimeWire

Hi! I noticed that you have been reverting the edits that the anon ip 62.194.17.184 (talk · contribs) made to the LiveWire article. I have now warned this IP that he/she is in violation of the three revert rule. At the moment the last edit to this article is another revert by this IP, which I have not reverted (if I am to block him on the 3RR at some point in the future I should stay out of the debate). I suggest that you don't revert this edit either, as that would put you in violation of the 3RR too, but you might want to open a discussion about these edits on the talk page for this article. JeremyA 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy. As I understand it, the 3RR does not apply to reverting clear and obvious vandalism, so either of us can (and should) act in this case to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. (I have already done so.) Pretending that a known and documented harmful spyware application is harmless is one of the nastiest, most anti-social activities one could possibly undertake on the 'pedia, and a long-term block is usually appropriate for it. In this case, I am assuming good faith on the part of the user, and have chosen to block for only 24 hours. But I (or any other admin) should stand ready to apply a mch longer block if the offences continue.

Essentially, there are three levels of anti-social behaviour on Wikipedia:

Simple bad edits. These can be a pain, but usually fall into the content dispute arena, blocking is not normally appropriate.
Vandalism that damages Wikipedia pages (blanking, inserting nonsense, etc.) For this, we warn, and if need be we block, usually for 24 hours, sometimes less, or longer for gross violations, especally if repeated.
Vandalism that threatens to harm Wikipedia readers, such as infecting them with viruses, or as in this case, spyware. This is the worst of the three categories.

I'm not sure if 62.194.17.184 intended harm or not — in fact, I suspect not — but regardless of his motivations, the consequences of his actions were clearly and squarely in that third category. I have placed the following message on his user talk page:

It is not acceptable to make and promote external links to known viruses or spyware products. This is not fair or reasonable, and exposes Wikipedia readers to an unacceptable risk of infection. Limewire is something of a special case, as it now claims to have reformed, and no longer be spyware. Nevertheless, even if the latest version is legitimate, Limewire is a known and documented cause of damage to people's systems and needs to be dealt with very carefully.

When your 24 hour block expires, you are welcome to return to Wikipedia, but you must edit with due care for the welfare of other readers or you will be blocked again. 3 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

Tannin 3 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

This is not software that I have either used or investigated, so I'll take your word for it. JeremyA 3 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, part of my job to deal with the consequences of Limewire and other similar infections. We see the destruction it causes every week. Tannin

Leave LimeWire alone

Tannin,

LimeWire contains no spyware, virus, etc. Please discuss with us if you feel that it does.

The LimeWire Team.

We are talking about a product that is known and documented spyware. Now people here tell me that the latest version has turned over a new leaf and sworn off its former immoral and deceptive practices. I am prepared to take that claim at face value. But it is not possible to re-write the history of the program or the people behind it. It's like having a criminal record: you can swear that you are all of a sudden now an honest and law-abiding citizen, and people may well believe you, but that doesn't wipe out your record: you still can't get a government job or be a company director or be employed in a position of trust. The claim that Limewire is now legitimate and (apparently) honest software has no bearing on the fact that Limewire has caused an enormous amount of damage to computer users in the past, and this damage is what the product is best-known for.

That Limewire has contained harmful spyware is a matter of public record. Tannin 6 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Fauna

Thannks for the compliment, and fixing up the Red Deer mess. The fauna article is a fun one to work on, since there isn't one like it and its so broad. Have you got any frog pictures?--nixie 7 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

FAC comments

Can you take another look at your objections to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Friedrich Gauss? Borisblue has tried to fix your objections, and I'd like to hear your opinion. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 18:06 (UTC)

LimeWire

User Tanin watch your language !! You already violated 3RR rule now you starting to insult people ! Vorash 8 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Eel article demerge

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about your demerge of the eel and eel life history articles. The eel life history article had a lot of information about eels in general, and it seemed appropriate that the information stay in the eel article. It doesn't seem like there's enough information in the eel article to merit splitting that subsection into a separate article.

Also, when you demerged the articles, you did this by reverting eel story to the old version, rather than by moving the material from the eel article. This discarded all of the changes which had been made to that text while it was in the eel article.

I guess, to a large part, I don't really understand what the "eel life history" article is about. It talks about several seemingly unrelated topics (the historical study of eels, current ecological threats, etc.), so I don't understand why it should be separated from the main article into one subarticle. The phrase "eel life history" doesn't make any sense to me; does this mean "eel lifecycles"?

Would you be opposed to me remerging the articles? -- Creidieki 17:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft specifications survey

Hi again Tannin - just a quick heads-up about a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of WikiProject Aircraft's standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image:dingo.jpg - it wasn't me!

Hi Tannin,

First, someone moved my image 011dingo.jpg to commons under the name dingo.jpg This meant that your image showed twice in the article, because a commons image is only used if there's no en/wikipedia image by the same name. Then, after I did a semi-revert and left a couple of notices asking people who understand commons to sort it out, someone has replaced your dingo image on /en/ with mine. I think the best solution would be if you upload your image to commons as dingo2 or some other non-clashing name. Cheers, Richard dramatic 21:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common Brushtail Possum

Hi Tannin, this is a great image but the tag is depreciated. I wonder if you would consider changing the licensing to a free license and prevent the image from being eventually deleted.

Thanks very much, -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 02:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You can choose between {{pd}} or {{gfdl}} Scriberius 13:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Yellow Mallee.jpg

Image:Yellow Mallee.jpg is going to be deleted, could you put a free license on it? --Commander Keane 06:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Rodney King

Responded to your comments there! Kurt Weber 18:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

hi, your drongo picture will be deleted, because the license is not free..... -85.178.184.133

How about Image:Laughing-Kookaburra-240.jpg, could it be under a free licence, too? Otherwise it will be deleted, there are already possible replacement images. Somebody has copied the image to Commons, and described it as a GFDL image. I supose this is against your intentions, but I'll wait for your comment for some weeks. -Hapsiainen

Image:Sugar-Glider-418.jpg

Hello Tannin, i'm from german wp. I'm writing an article about the Sugar Glider at the moment: de:Benutzer:Jonathan Hornung/Kurzkopfgleitbeutler, and i need an photografy. Could you give a right licence for Image:Sugar-Glider-418.jpg, so i (or you) could load up the picture on the commons. Thank you! --Jonathan Hornung 14:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer!! I know you have much to do, but this time is really important! --Jonathan Hornung 18:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Just so you're aware, there's another attempt being made to remove the term "Conspiracy theory" from Wikipedia. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? User:Nichalp/sg 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Zscout370

Tony, I don't know if you have come across this character yet, he's an irresponsible 19 year-old who has amazingly been given admin rights which in my view he is abusing.

He is deleting all non-tagged images including those marked as "my photo", or similar, even if they were uploaded before tagging became compulsory. He refuses to notify uploaders that their images are at risk, so you don't get the chance to add a tag. He takes the view that you can always upload again.

He is hiding the inevitable criticism, for example my comments were archived (to his archive 3) within hours. Just a warning to watch this guy, jimfbleak 16:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Purely By chance, I came across your Image:Spangled Drongo.jpg. Did you know it was lined up for deletion?

ditto Image:Red-necked Stint.jpg. This guy's a real little shit. Jim

Jim, please read WP:NPA. While I know we have a disagreement, but the last sentence was not called for. As for you Tannin, the reason the above images were slated for deletion was that when you uploaded them, you put them under a license. However, the license grants only non-commercial use of the images, which has been disallowed since May of this year. What I can suggest is to tag the images with {{GFDL}}. Zach (Sound Off) 17:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Tony -sounds like a wonderful camera, I'll see if my piggy bank has enough pennies, and look at the spec. I understand your position re images, and you were obviously more abreast with these developments than me. I have no problem with GFDL or PD licences, but my images aren't good enough for anyone to bother. I'm just annoyed at the unthinking way this policy has been implemented. Best wishes, Jim

Visual Basic Classic wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 08:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AMD-Athlon-XP-2100s.jpg

Hello! Just letting you know I have listed Image:AMD-Athlon-XP-2100s.jpg for deletion on IFD because it is simply a smaller version of Image:AMD-Athlon-XP-2100l.jpg. -SCEhardt 02:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep

What are you playing at Tony? There is (or was) a vote in progress on its talk page on whether my creation of domestic sheep should remain, which you seem to have ignored for a unilateral change, which in the process seems to have lost all the content. Jim

Sorry, I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER I see what's happened now, jimfbleak 11:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrebird

Could you please cite the source of your comment about the lyrebird mimicking the fire siren in the 19th century and stopping loggers from working, because Tearlach keeps on deleting the comment from the Lyrebird article page, and putting it into the discussion page. Figaro 15:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a problem with your comment about the Lyrebird 'folklore' comment:

"Australian folklore is rich with tales of lyrebird mimicry: if the story of a male lyrebird that used to regularly halt 19th Century logging operations by mimicing the fire siren is not true, a hundred others are."

A user Tearlach is continually removing the comment from the Lyrebird article and relegating it to the Talk:Lyrebird page, and saying that there is no verification listed for the comment. I tried to make things okay by restoring the comment to the Lyrebird article under the sub-heading of Fact or fiction in an effort to stop 'User:Tearlach' removal of the comment, only to have 'User:Tearlach' promptly remove the comment again from the article. In desperation, I have written to both Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) under the heading of Australian folklore and to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board under the head of Lyrebird debate, to find out whether the comment needs to be verified, or whether the sub-headings of Fact or fiction or Urban myth would be enough to allow the comment on the article page. The response on both of these forums has been rather mixed to say the least.

I am strongly of the opinion that the comment should be allowed to take its place on the Lyrebird article page, but I am aware that 'User:Tearlach' will only remove the comment again without any concrete evidence that there is verification, or an allowance in Wikipedia policy. To this end, I have spent several hours trying to obtain such verification, as the large number of references and external links that I have added to the Lyrebird article page will demonstrate, but, as yet, I have not been able to find anything.

Would it be possible, please, for you to cite a source. Thanks. Figaro 00:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important AfD

Hi. Great to see that you're still around! It has been quite some time when we ran into each other last... Anyway, I'm dealing with a difficult AfD at the moment, and need as many well informed minds as possible. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. Best regards. 172 01:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Also Image:Darter.jpg and Image:Australian-Darter-238.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Australian-Pelicans-s.jpg, Image:Brown Falcon.jpg, Image:Brolga.jpg, Image:Azure Kingfisher.jpg, Image:Douglas-dc3s.jpg, Image:Brush-tailed-Bettong-223.jpg, Image:Eastern-Grey-Kangaroo.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Hoary-headed Grebe.jpg, Image:Koala.jpg, Image:Lemon-breasted Flycatcher.jpg, Image:Mara.jpg, Image:Mikoyan-MiG-15s.jpg, Image:Painted Buttonquail.jpg, Image:Patterson's Curse.jpg, Image:Peregrine-Falcon.jpg, Image:Pilliga.jpg, Image:Purple-Swamphen-223.jpg, Image:Radjah Shelduck.jpg, Image:Red Goshawk.jpg, Image:Red-necked Stint.jpg, Image:Rhea.jpg, Image:Satin Bowerbird-f.jpg, Image:Satin Bowerbird-m.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Australian-Copperhead.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Alpine Ash-after-fire.jpg, Image:Apostlebirds-220.jpg, Image:Australian Pratincole.jpg, Image:Australian-Magpie-314.jpg, Image:Australian-Sea-Lion-head-239.jpg, Image:Beach Stone-curlew.jpg, Image:Laughing-Kookaburra-240.jpg, Image:Regent-Parrot-238.jpg, Image:Wyperfeld-428.jpg, Image:Spotted-Pardalote-l.jpg, Image:Western-Grey-Kangaroo-with-joey.jpg, Image:Road train-800.jpg, Image:Sopwith Camel.jpg, Image:Pilatus-PC-9l.jpg, Image:Jumpers-on-DTK386board.jpg, Image:Seagate-ST-412-l.jpg, Image:Black-Kite.jpg, Image:Black-faced Woodswallow.jpg, Image:Black-fronted-Dotterel-243.jpg, Image:Black-shouldered-Kite-595.jpg, Image:Black-shouldered-Kite-628.jpg, Image:Black-winged-Stilt-204.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Black-winged-Stilt-388.jpg, Image:Blackwood-Linton.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for photo

Thanks for freely licensing your photo, I am using it on this wikiHow page http://wiki.ehow.com/Catch-a-Snake and crediting you here http://wiki.ehow.com/Image:YoungCopperhead.jpg

Thanks again. --JackHerrick 01:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Regards,

Arno. Arno 09:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Regent-Parrot-238.jpg

This image lacks copyright tags and is up for deletion. Since you state that it is your own pic, I advise to put GFDL tags or another appropriate tag to the image. JoJan 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid deletion and since you've been away from Wikipedia since September 2005, I've changed the tags myself to {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} . Feel free to change these tags again as soon you're back. JoJan 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture tagging

Hi, could you please tag Image:Alpine Ash-after-fire.jpg. It has just been removed from the bushfire article on the grounds it was "non-free" :-) Thanks - Regards--A Y Arktos 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss the wholescale deletion project with User:Dbenbenn. It seems you are not helping at al with the reversions of tagging by users Diceman [3] and JoJann[4]. I don't know where you are at but it seems a real shame. Your pictures were good but they cannot continue to be on the wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial images tag. If you want help retagging to avaoid deletion please ask. No other user can do it for you without your guidance as to what the appropriate tag is, particularly following your reversions of Diceman's and JoJan's attempts to help.--A Y Arktos 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wyperfeld-428.jpg

"revert scumbag dishonesty by User Diceman" - Go f___ yourself. Do you know how quickly images with tags like "This image will soon be deleted without further warning" get deleted nowdays? No good deed goes unpunished...

Looks like other images of yours have this problem, get your act together. - Diceman 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sopwith Camel.jpg

Hi - someone removed your image "Sopwith Camel.jpg" from the page Sopwith Camel because they thought the picture was copyrighted. If you took the picture can you release it to the public domain (use this tag {{PD-user|Tannin}}) or put another tag on it so it can be used in the article again? That would be very much appreciated - the article is missing something without the picture :(. Thanks, FranksValli 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these photos really GFDL

The following pictures you uploaded were tagged GFDL by others, without any apparent confirmation by you. Could you clarify whether they are really GFDL? Image:Airbus-A300-600STl.jpg, Image:Australian-White-Ibis.jpg, Image:Australian-Lungfish.jpg, Image:Corymbia-ficifolia-l.jpg, Image:English-Electric-Canberra-l.jpg, Image:F-111-db.jpg, Image:Greycurrawong-l.jpg, Image:Yellow-billed-spoonbill.jpg, Image:Red-Kangaroo.jpg, Image:Eucalypt.jpg dbenbenn | talk 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have untagged the incorrectly tagged images, and requested deletion for those uploaded to the commons.--nixie 02:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Corymbia-ficifolia-l.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Corymbia-ficifolia-l.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australian-White-Ibis.jpg, Image:Australian-Lungfish.jpg, Image:Greycurrawong-l.jpg, Image:F-111-db.jpg, Image:English-Electric-Canberra-l.jpg, Image:Yellow-billed-spoonbill.jpg, and Image:Eucalypt.jpg all need license tags. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be tagged now, except the Airbus one which I can'r edit as it's on Commons or somewhere. That one is GFDL.

It is a terrible shame to see the image mafia destroying so much good work. Tannin 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Commons:Image:Red-Kangaroo-5legs.jpg? (To edit that one, you can easily create a user account at the Commons with Commons:Special:Userlogin.) dbenbenn | talk 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pronghorn.jpg

We need a source for this. Thanks! -SCEhard T 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a resized version of an existing image (not mine) that seems to have been deleted now. No idea where the original was from, probably US gov PD, but that's just a guess - back then, nearly all the wildlife pictures were from that source. Tannin 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellow Mallee.jpg

Hey Tannin, could you put some licence on this pic, it's just written that's your own work, it's not sufficent (:

(and some stoopid question, do you know anything more on the mallee or got some nice pics in stock? Thanks!)

Good bye (: Tvpm 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greycurrawong-l.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Greycurrawong-l.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

dbenbenn | talk 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Yellow Mallee.jpg, Image:Blue-Wren-223.jpg, Image:Blue-billed Duck-female.jpg, Image:Blue-winged Kookaburra.jpg, Image:Bush Stone-curlew-244.jpg, Image:Bush Stone-curlew.jpg, Image:Bush-Stone-curlew-350.jpg, Image:Caspian-Terns-233.jpg, Image:Comb-crested Jacana.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Common-Brushtail-Possum-246.jpg, Image:Common-Brushtail-Possum-361.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 11:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Zebra Finch.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Coot-foot-334.jpg, Image:Crested-Pigeon-240.jpg, Image:Darwin skyline.jpg, Image:Double-barred Finch.jpg, Image:Dusky Honeyeater.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Tetum

Help building a Wikipedia in Tetum, the national language of East Timor. Give your contribution to the improvement of its test page -- Regards, 195.23.53.121 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Manuel de Sousa[reply]

pre columbian trans oceanic contact

i appreciate and fully concur with your posting under NPOV and pruning. what can we do to restore this topic to a more academic basis? who was the original author that wrote of the early contacts so well?...let me know how i can help...im doing certain limited studies of culdees and early irish seafaring.....cheers Anlace 07:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Image:Red-Kangaroo-5legs.jpg

I hate to keep bugging you about this image, but it's a great image and it is useful. I would hate to see it become deleted because you, as the source of the image, would not release it at Commons under the GDFL. To make it easy, a statement by you right here saying the following: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License", will be sufficient. Please let me know on my talk page. Thank you. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AMD-Athlon-XP-2100l.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:AMD-Athlon-XP-2100l.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:K63-450plus.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:K63-450plus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Rainbow_Lorikeets.jpg listed for deletion

hi! i'm sure you get these messages a lot, but there's another image that will probably soon be deleted: Image:Rainbow_Lorikeets.jpg you might want to check the license... --Mnolf 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Dusky-Woodswallow-230.jpg, Image:Eastern Curlew.jpg, Image:Eastern Reef Egret.jpg, Image:Emu-head.jpg, Image:Eucalyptus-regnans.jpg, Image:Eurasian-Coot-241.jpg, Image:Fan-tailed-Cuckoo-230.jpg, Image:Figbird-mf.jpg, Image:Figbird-sm.jpg, Image:Figbird.jpg, Image:Forest-Kingfisher.jpg, Image:Galah.jpg, Image:Golden-Bowerbird.jpg, Image:Golden-headed-Cisticola.jpg, Image:Great Bowerbird-bower.jpg, Image:Great Bowerbird.jpg, Image:Great Egret-656.jpg, Image:Grey Shrike-thrush.jpg, Image:Grey-Fantail-210.jpg, Image:Grey-crowned-Babbler-212.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Hardhead-205.jpg, Image:Hardhead-957.jpg, Image:Little Raven.jpg, Image:Little Woodswallow.jpg, Image:Little-Eagle-223.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFD

Hi Dbenben. Thanks for your patient care in notifyimg me about impending deletion of my images. As you know, I disagree with the (now not-so) recently adopted policy of deleting such images, but am resigned to it. Perhaps it would save you some trouble if in future you just went ahead and deleted them without notifying me about each one. That would be OK by me. If that's close to a breach of deletion policy, well, just consider me notified about all the others already.

Regards, Tannin 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It's not too late to change your mind about the noncommercial licenses! Anyway, I'll quit spamming your talk page. By the way, did you intend Image:Musk-Duck-304.jpg to be GFDL? dbenbenn | talk 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I overlooked that one. But no matter, it can stand as-is. Tannin 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for deletion

Hi. Forgive me for asking you to explaing something you've probably already explained! I'm just wondering about your many images listed for deletion. They are all marked as your own works. Is it just that you can't find a suitable tag acceptable to both you and WP? It's a shame to lose so many excellent images. Mark83 12:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Piliga.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Piliga.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bobo is soft 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another image question

Hi Tannin. I've read the questions above, and can guess the answer, but I'll ask anyway. I've added Image:Lake Hart.jpg to teh nominations for the picture on Portal:Australia, and was going to ask if you have a higher-resolution version you'd be prepared to release. No pressure, no problems if you don't want to. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please license Image:Galah-336.jpg!

Image:Galah-336.jpg doesn't have a license... could you tag it? It'd be great to keep that image around. ~MDD 46 96 01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It passed around to the german Wikipedia and from there to the commons ;) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rosenkakadu.jpg & http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosenkakadu.jpg --Stefan-Xp 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barrier Reef peer review?

Hi Tannin, I noticed that you've made some good edits to Great Barrier Reef. I've recently put the article up for peer review. I hope that you'll participate! - Malkinann 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

Some of your pictures were tagged GFDL by other people, and haven't been edited by you since. Could you clarify the status of these? An incomplete list:

Thanks, User:dbenbenn 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congo Free State

As one of the most prominent contributors to this article perhaps you should look at some of the recent changes made to it by User:Superslum, er.. ignore the umlaut stuff. Jooler 14:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Little-Egret-656.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Little-Egret-656.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Lake Eildon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lake Eildon.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 11:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Lake Eildon2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lake Eildon2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 11:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo Matching Service

Hi there,

I'm contacting you because you listed yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. You might be interested in a new wikiproject page that lists photographers and articles that need photos by location. The page is located at Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service or WP:PMS GabrielF 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Brolga3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brolga3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Blue-billed-Duck-655.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blue-billed-Duck-655.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rat-640.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rat-640.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Gulf of Carpentaria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gulf of Carpentaria.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence

I don't know if you've looked at the article Race and intelligence recently, but it has over the years become a stockpile of information to support the genetic hypothesis. Myself and a few other editors have been working hard over the past few months to add more information about environmental factors, and other aspects of this topic, such as media portrayal to try to balance the article. I notice that you were active in the early debates on this article, and I'm hoping that I can convince you to come back and get involved again. What do you say? futurebird 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock pigeon

Hi. I tried to make a compromise on the Rock pigeon issue: please see Talk:Rock Pigeon. Essentially, the stub article on Australian Rock pigeons is now at Petrophassa; I found and put a few references there, if you'd like to expand it and/or create the subarticles. Duja► 12:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F-111-db.jpg

The license information of the picture Image:F-111-db.jpg is incomplete. For using in the german Wikipedia we need the following informations too: Who is the author ?, When and where has the picture been taken? Thanks for supplements.
Greetings from Germany to Australia--Uwe W. 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Willie-Wagtail-thumb.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Willie-Wagtail-thumb.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Congo Free State

Congo Free State has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Hey Tannin
-I have recently put in a proposal for a project on OS Construction at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development]
+I have recently put in a proposal for a project on OS Construction at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development]
 I currently trying to rack up support for this project (your one of the first people I have spoken to), and I noticed you have edited some OS related articles, and I am wondering if you would be interested in the project?