User talk:MECU

If you are here to discuss an image please read the text below which may answer your question:

Please first read the Image FAQ. If it doesn't answer your question to your satisfaction, then please feel free to ask me for further information.
If I marked an image of yours for deletion, please understand that I am following our image policies and there is no malicious intent behind. If you do not oppose the deletion, you do not need to notify me.
If I marked an image as replaceable fair use, please note the directions on the tag to dispute it. Telling me about why you dispute deletion is appreciated, but addressing the issue raised in the tag is more constructive.
If I have tagged an image as missing a source or missing a copyright tag and you have added the required information, just remove the deletion tag. Take care, though, that you have added a full source, not just "I got this from their website".
If I have nominated a freely licensed orphaned image for deletion at WP:IFD and you feel that it might be useful somewhere sometime just not right here, right now, see directions for moving it to Wikimedia Commons.
If you are here to give me a notice about a fair use image that I "uploaded" and you are marking orphaned, no rationale, or any other tag, I am most likely NOT the author. If you look on the history tag of the image, you will see the uploader as the first edit, and where I later fair use reduced the image, which then requires I upload the image and that past versions are deleted, making it look like I uploaded it. If this is the case, please contact the original uploader who is far more likely to have an invested interest in making sure the image is not compromised.

My Admin recall policy: User:MECU/selfadminpolicy

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - MECU

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the + on the navigation bar above. In addition, I request you be complete and descriptive in your comments. Do not assume I know what you are talking about. Providing links to both the subject and any relevant policies are encouraged. If you do not need a reply, please state as such. Do not edit any other users comments. Most of all, be polite, even if you feel I have not been polite to you.

Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

USGOV

If the license is USGOV, the source is US Gov. There is no need to flag them as unsourced. Its inherent to the license. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MECU, you tagged an image I uploaded for NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.) The file is from a U.S. government website, and as far as I know, it is therefore in the public domain as long as indicated, which it currently is. If further action needs to be taken, I'm not sure what it is. Sorry, I'm not really familiar with these procedures. If you have further questions, let me know on my talk page. Chrissy385 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generic reply to all users whose image I marked and have similar questions:

The problem is that the current source information isn't very specific on where you got the image. Yes that agency is probably a federal government agency, so the image is likely free, but you still (and always) need to provide enough sourcing information so that the license information can be verified. Would you please add the HTML website page that you found the image on? Thanks. If you need more help or have more questions, please ask. MECU≈talk 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MECU, I'm confused about what you are talking about, because the image does appear on a Wikipedia page. See National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Is it possible you were referring to an older version of the image? I may have previously uploaded an old version that is no longer linked to any WIKI page and should therefore be erased. As for the image that appears on the NIOSH page-- I don't know the actual URL of the image on the NIOSH website because I uploaded it from a NIOSH computer with access to their intranet, but you will see if you visit www.cdc.gov/niosh that it's all over their site in various forms. Hope this clears things up. Chrissy385 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MECU, thanks for your note. You're right, I am confused, and I don't really understand what it is you want me to do. The image is a U.S. government image and is therefore in the public domain. This is indicated on the image. What else needs to be done to give proper credit? If you are looking for a URL to use, you can use this one; I just used a cropped version without the full agency named spelled out. Will that work? Chrissy385 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBS Image

I created the NBS image Image:NBS_120_Set.jpg and provided all source information, which is listed with the image. Please explain your concern with source. John (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned the image from an NBS Circular 120, and cleaned it up with Photoshop. John (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:MECU/Image FAQ #2. MECU≈talk 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were talking about this. I did not delete the image. Apparently the deleting admin agreed with me. Please contact them to request undeletion (the first step is to contact the deleting admin). If you can be proven, then prove it with information, not statements that "it can be proven". MECU≈talk 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to contact anyone about restoring this image. I respectfully ask you to please be more careful, I understand you mean well, but you are not being careful enough and you are doing more harm than good. John (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown jewels

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Ralphie - that Colorado State Senate resolution is really neat, and the article's got great free-use images. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is verifiable, I cited the precise document that I used in creating the image. Please restore the image.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JA.Davidson (talk • contribs)

What are you referring to? What image? What is verifiable? Please sign all your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. MECU≈talk 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contact link does not work. How can we recover the image so I can show the info? John (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0_21_080331_gold_necklace.jpg at Jiskairumoko

Hi thanks for raising questions about this image. I thought I had provided suitable source information, but I must have been wrong. The photograph was taken by Mark Aldenderfer. I was his Ph.D. student when I was working at Jiskairumoko. I actually did some minor processing of the image, like adding the scale bar, but Mark took the shot. He has happily agreed to let me use the image, I think I have properly included source information, and we are hoping to share it on the entry for Jiskairumoko. I would appreciate it if the image could be reinstated on that page. I tried to make the appropriate changes. Please let me know if everything looks ok. NathanCraig (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable deletion of NASA Images

Image:NapukaISS002-E-6371.PNG, as well as the following images that were deleted: Image:RangiroaISS002-709-52.PNG Image:RapaISS004-E-12980.PNG Image:RarakaISS004-E-6701.PNG Image:RaroiaISS006-E-9321.PNG Image:RavahereISS009-E-6062.PNG Image:ReaoISS002-E-8953.PNG Image:ReitoruISS010-E-5457.PNG are all in the public domain because they were created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". Please check the guidelines at NASA JSC Webpage: [1] None of the pictures deleted hid the fact that they were NASA pictures. Credit to NASA was given even in the caption of each one of the pictures. Mohonu (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read User talk:MECU/Image FAQ #2. You should address your concerns with the admin that deleted the images at User talk:east718. If you have more questions or confusion after reading my FAQ and contacting the other admin, please let me know. Thanks for your understanding, cooperation and contributions to Wikipedia. MECU≈talk 12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NREL Campus Image

Hi. You tagged the NREL Campus image I uploaded as questionable in regards to its copyright status. I figured NREL is a National Lab so the images on the site should be public domain but this is apparently not true. Even images I've uploaded with permission from the webmaster at Sandia are apparently in violation due to copyright rules. Frankly, copyright rules are beyond me but I promise not to upload anymore images from National Labs. Cheers. Mrshaba (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edit to Colorado Buffaloes

I removed from the article uncited claims about CU fans doing things such as dumping urine on NU fans. At the same time, I removed uncited claims regarding NU fans displaying inappropriate signs regarding the late Sal Aunese. You chose to restore the uncited text regarding the latter. It is neither fair nor encyclopedic to allow the uncited claims of one side to remain while deleting the uncited claims of the other side. Nevertheless, rather than edit warring, I have added citation tags. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and remove the text about the signs. If someone does come up with a source, it can be put back in. I appreciate your reply. You're one who is on my "Trusted Editors List" (which really only exists in my head) since I've noticed your positive contribution to quite a few of the articles that I watch. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube link in Abbas Kiarostami article

As per ur suggestions at Wikipedia:MCQ#Youtube_link_to_a_video_in_Abbas_Kiarostami, I reverted the the link but User:BehnamFarid added it back. User:Hux deleted the link but User:BehnamFarid added it back again. Finally i deleted the link again and posted a warning message on Behnam Farid's talk page. Since i have reverted twice and i dont wanna violate 3RR, i want to know what steps can be taken if Behnam Farid adds the youtube link again in the article. Can i request the blocking of user in such a scenario???.....if so what are steps needed to request a block???? ....I have never reported a user for blocking before.....thats why i am asking you becos u r a admin and u know better....thanx Gprince007 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that this Gprince007 is most likely suffering from some form of acute obsession. I have told him time and again that I am not bound by what s/he may or may not believe and that s/he should address her/his concerns to YouTube; YouTube being a legal and responsible website, they will investigate the matter and should they come to the conclusion that the video at issue were uploaded to YouTube illegally, they remove this video as a matter of policy; in such case, we shall remove the link as a "dead" link in due course. Gprince007 has never stated where her/his beliefs may be based on; for me his statement amounts to a mere assertion by someone who even feels justified to remove my text from the talk page of the entry on Abbas Kiarostami (please see the history of this talk page and the explicit statement by Gprince007, announcing his despicable act of applying censure to my signed texts), on the most risible and puerile argument that my text contained results of some original research and that Wikipedia were not a place in which to utter ideas containing such results. I observe that Gprince007 has further advanced in the same authoritarian track and is now demanding my exclusion from Wikipedia. This further adds to my suspicion that Gprince007 (note the "007" and then the "prince") suffers from the mental ailment of intolerance (very common, and even one of the active state policies, in the part of the world where I come from); his constant citing of Wikipedia rules, with their appropriate abbreviations, is further evidence that this individual may be a fundamentalist, in the broad sense of the word; in the real world, as opposed to the virtual world, such individuals normally beat up people for not conforming with what they perceive as the best thing for their fellow citizens. I rest my case here. --BF 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to let u know that u suggested that i take this issue at BehnamFarid's talk page.....but since i was discussing this issue already on the talk page of the article in question, i didnt think it necessary to post the same thing on his talk page. Also, Behnam is a "experienced" user with over 3300 edits....so i dont think he can be classified as a newbie.....Despite this, i tried to make him see reason by explaining wikipedia policies on the talk page. Still this user doesnt seem to get the point. As is evident from discussion threads on the talk page of the article, me and other users have tried explaining wikipedia policies to him. After everything else failed, i posted a warning message on his talk page, which he deleted (see here). Now he has posted a message above, stating that I "suffer from the mental ailment of intolerance" & that I "might be a fundamentalist". This i believe borders on personal attack and is completely contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The reason why i am concerned is because, Abbas Kiarostami is a FA and such copyright violations need to be kept away from FA becos Featured Articles are "best of wikipedia" and it needs to be kept clean. Gprince007 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to User:BehnamFarid

Might I suggest that you consider your audience when leaving messages like this? Putting "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the talk page of a user who's been here since 2006 can be considered belittling and insulting. I'm not saying that the rest of the message wasn't correct, but when you're using Twinkle it's all too tempting to click the "ownership level 1" message without considering what it says. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I chose level one because it seems to be appropriate for a first warning of such things, but I should have then removed it. Thanks for the pointer. MECU≈talk 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice discussion

Hello, MECU. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Repeated addition of copyright violation in Abbas Kiarostami article. The discussion can be found under the topic [[: Repeated addition of copyright violation in Abbas Kiarostami article]]. --Gprince007 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On attacking

I did not attack any one! I only responded to the charges falsely laid at my door. Also, please do not send me threatening messages; if you think that I must be blocked, then just block. What do you expect me to do when the person at issue is lying all through her/his text? Please read the talk page of Kiarostami's entry; until yesterday 9 O'clock not a single person had supported the actions of User:Gprince007, and yet this person shamelessly says that I reverted her/his changes against the will of all the rest. S/he keeps telling that the material at issue were on YouTube in violation of copyright laws, yet s/he fails to give a single evidence in support of this assertion; the only thing that we now know is that the whole thing is based on some feelings on this person's part. Oh, please kindly do not send me yet another message in response to this. --BF 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the Barnstar eaten by a bear. I'm amazed that people waste time vandalizing Wikipedia. The only thing worse than a vandal is an ignorant one and that poor fellow is clueless. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check...

I'm not sure about the source I've found for Image:F16 Idaho airshow.jpg. Would you check it? --Damiens.rf 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Although the image here is larger and has a 4:3 instead of 3:4 orientation, it is essentially the same image and the website states the same author, so it's fine. Thanks for fixing the problem. MECU≈talk 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Knight

Hi, please feel free to delete this image (I don't know how).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Wfgh66

I was only experimenting with uploading images. I cannot trace the website where the image was taken from (it may not exist anymore). Wfgh66 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

I am the uploader of the hubble pictures. What do I put for the author, description, and the other information?Mattkenn3 (talk to me, I'm confused) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks For The Heads Up

I personally do not know who created the image, but it came from several of my friends who went to NIU and posted it on their Myspace. As it is not in any article, and I don't have a source for it, delete it. Thanks. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion

Its stated in the image description for Image:Hamon_Jean-Louis-Old_China_Shop_(Pompeii).jpg that the picture is in the public domain according to US law because its a representation of a work of art over 100 years old. I'm not sure why it was marked for deletion. Thanks. Brianshapiro —Preceding comment was added at 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning / deletion Image:Boer_Legation_VA0949.jpg

Information amended; please remove warning as image is PD! See added and edited info:

For some reason source description did not copy. I restored this. Image is solidly in the '70 years or less' public domain of the three PD-tags used (they complement each other!). The image was produced in 1900 in the Netherlands. Note on reusage was misconstrued or phrased inaccurately: keeper of the image (Provincial Archives of the Free State, South Africa) just appreciates full recognition of custodianship in reusage and notification through address given. Hope this suffices; please remove tag. Michel Doortmont Michel Doortmont (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, information suffices. Makeshift Thackery (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]