User talk:Fourthords: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 20 August 2008

Archives

Stella Hudgens

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Stella Hudgens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kasey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kasey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I only reverted an image upload there, the actual uploader is Lillygirl (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2179223763_64ac45e0e1.jpg

I saw your tag. If you look on the discussion page of Talk:Ashley Tisdale, you will see where he not only found the image on Flickr, he then found another copy on Ashley's official site, http://www.ashleytisdale.com/galleryn.asp, all before deciding that he should claim to be the copyright holder.Kww (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grumpy doughboy.gif

What do you mean by "possibly unfree image"? What is the problem with the picture? (I'm still new to Wikipedia so I don't know) -- 224jeff6^TALK2ME 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillsbury Doughboy is a copyrighted and trademarked character. By claiming {{PD-self}} on that image, you're saying that you own the copyright to everything in that image, and are releasing your rights. Obviously you don't own the copyright to the Doughboy character, so you can't make that claim. Strictly speaking I should have nominated it for deletion (WP:IfD) as a copyright violation, as the "possible unfree images" is only for images where someone is uncertain if the image is copyrighted.

Ultimately, the image will be deleted as it's (a) obviously not your copyright and (b) it doesn't serve any encyclopedic purposes to be kept under fair-use (WP:NFCC). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK. But what do I do? 224jeff6^TALK2ME 19:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing you really need to do right now; an administrator will eventually get to checking the image, find it unsat, and delete it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a good rationale?

Hi, I'm sure you might remember who I am.

Since you know alot about how fair use rationales are being created for the best suitable type pictures, (In this case, a television screenshot), I would like to know if this is more or less enough and really appropriate? I have many more images with this kind of fair use rationales. Over the years, I have taken notice how so many Simpsons TV screenshots have been deleted due to the disputed fair use rationales... But luckily so far, none of my contributions have been tagged for deletion. Today, I visited my favourite article, and noticed within one night, most of the images were gone. Seeing what has happened, I wouldn't want this to happen to all my other images; I do take my contributions seriously, and I should tell you that I do take pride in any of my contributions and I don't want them to be tagged for deletion. I would like to know if I there is a better quality way of writing a good rationale in the example I gave above to avoid deletion. I just never liked to see things happening this way.

Concerned, and learning. Thanks.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, for what it is, it's a pretty good and strong rationale. I don't generally fiddle too much with well-tagged fair-use images anymore, just because you said: people are proud and have strong feelings about their contributions (especially images); I generally try to limit myself to obvious copyright violations and the ilk now. However, that's not to say that despite your good rationale somebody won't feel that it's superfluous and only decorative and either remove it or delete based on that (see WP:NFCC#8). I highly recommend trying to bulk up the content that your image is supporting. In this instance, mention exactly how many times this specific character has appeared, how critical to those episodes he's been, and especially anything you can include (that's reliably sourced!) about his depiction and appearance. I wish you good luck; and if you need anything else, let me know and I'll do my best to help. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, oh yes I'll have to agree that not all might keep up with its rationale and might come up with some other theory about deleting it. That was my concern. Anyway I'll continue to keep it up this way! :)

Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Torres

hi, i really dont know how to do this, so sorry that im editing your page. i see that you keep changing the joe torres article to state that he starred in the 2002 movie groove. well, thats actually inaccurate. a guy named aaron langridge played somebody named joe torres in the movie, but it wasnt actually the same guy who starred as danny lightfoot. sorry about the harassment some of my friends may have been giving you, but we're just pretty touchy when it comes to the subject of our friend joe torres.

looooove, Presently (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't not believe you. But Wikipedia can't accept information that we know, only information that we can prove; that's the rules that makes Wikipedia reliable. TV Guide says one thing, but I can't find another reliable source that says another. If you can find one online (and IMDb is not a reliable source), let me know and I'll edit the article appropriately.

And don't apologize for editing my talk page, that's what it's here for. However, since this is more a discussion about the article and may be applicable to other editors, I'm going to suggest we continue it here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as discussed, moved to: Talk: Joe Torres#Groove.

What is your problem?

Hey asshole I scanned these in myself. You better out all the shit I worked my as to scan in and put on here back up. NOW! License plates are not copyrighted and I created the image of them so get your head out of your ass and fix things shithead! MRPL8 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License plates are copyrighted and the respective intellectual property of the governmental agency for whom their design was commissioned. Despite your virulence, those images will remain the "possibly unfree images" process for discussion until an administrative decision has been made as to their copyright status.

For your edification, several of the images you uploaded were forthwith transferred to the Wikimedia Commons; having tagged them for deletion at the same time today, they have already been deleted as copyright violations (see: Image:AL_GBA_plate.jpg, Image:Indiana_IGWT_plate.jpg, Image:Utah_Plate.jpg, Image:Wy_license_plate_sample.jpg, Image:Ontario_1997_Sample.jpg, Image:Nova_Scotia_Sample.jpg, Image:Ca04.jpg, Image:Tx2008.jpg, Image:Mt2007.jpg, Image:Nv2007.jpg, Image:Ne2005.jpg, Image:Id2008.jpg, Image:Dc2003.jpg, Image:Florida_2004.jpg, Image:New_Hampshire_Sample_2001.jpg, Image:Louisiana_Sample_2007.jpg, and Image:Pa2008.jpg). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRONGO! You don't understand that they are public documents and not subject to copyright. If I create an image of it then I own copyright of said image. Why the hell should I contribute if there are clueless people like you who don't understand basic fundamental principles? If this is the kind of garbage treatment that is normal here I will leave and share my NEGATIVE experience with everyone I know and everyone I come into contact with. MRPL8 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Public documents [...] not subject to copyright"? Non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. Most media produced by the federal government of the United States fall into the public domain per law. However, individual state governments which produce the designs and appearances of their license plates retain their copyright to those designs (unless otherwise demonstrated). Merely by taking a picture of their work, you may not then release the copyright to the same; if that were the case, what then would a copyright even mean?

As for your threats to sow public discontent regarding your displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with Wikipedia, please remember that this is a volunteer collaborative work wherein we all agree (by our very contributing) to abide by the common rules, policies, guidelines, and procedures set forth by the community. I don't want to discourage you from contributing by any means, but I would suggest you tone down your argumentative replies and read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks & Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Non-free content, and mayhaps Wikipedia:Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia. If you have any other questions about images, uploading, copyrights, or any other aspect of Wikipedia, feel free to ask me here, or at any of the afore mentioned internal pages. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AND WHO THE HELL MADE YOU JUDGE JURY AND EXECUTIONER? MRPL8 (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody; I cannot delete any files from Wikipedia, that falls solely under the pervue of administrators. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy image

Just out of interest what makes you think my Laurel and Hardy image would be good for Wiki Commons? I don't really get what criteria a photo needs to meet to be moved there. After all this is hardly my best photo! Could you please tell me so I know for the future. Thanks. Cls14 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only criteria for uploading works to the Commons is that they be either copyright-free (like yours), or only require crediting to the original artist.

Wikimedia Commons is just a repository or database of libre media (mostly images). That's a nice image, and since you released it into the public domain it can be uploaded to the Commons for all to use; the nice thing about the Commons is that its images are usable and accessible across all Wikimedia projects: all Wikipedia languages, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc. I could go more into depth about promoting copyright-free works, and the Wikimedia Foundation's free mission, but that's the crux of it. And don't be down on your photo, I liked it. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know how I could move some of my other photos there. Only my best ones though! Cls14 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the easiest is to register for an account on Commons (here), and upload the same images under the same file names and licenses. Once they're uploaded there, just add {{db-self}} to the versions still on Wikipedia here and they'll be deleted from here and the Commons-uploaded versions will show through.

Even easier is just to add {{Move to Commons}} to the images you want moved over there, and somebody'll take care of the process for you. However, this process can take much longer, but isn't any less effective. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, thanks for your edits to the article. All of the images have been right-aligned. During featured article review, I was told to vary the image alignment a bit so that it draws the eye in more. What do think? --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always removed the sizing & alignment specifications from images in articles based on the Manual of Style. With respect to those, it says: "Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment," and "Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary." The former is for a consistence of style, whereas the latter is a usability issue: if you specify a small or large thumbnail size, users who have specified larger or smaller default thumbnails in their preferences (because they're running a higher or lower resolution, among other reasons) will be overridden.

Interestingly, I recently brought this subject up at the MoS talk page and it's being discussed currently. The current discussion is whether it's requisite for featured articles to comply with the MoS. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for info. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help a greenhorn

I did not study law and therefore aint no crack in such things. You made the suggestion to move this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Powershot_A720is.JPG from PD to WC. Why and what would that change? Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've released that image into the public domain (PD) saying in effect: "I no longer want or need to maintain my copyrights to this image; it is free for any purpose or usage now." That's the licensing of the image.

The Wikimedia Commons is just a database of libre images; that is, images which have either been released into the PD (like yours), or are copyrighted very loosly (i.e. under a Creative Commons, GFDL, or similar licensing). Commons is just another Wikimedia project like Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but instead of articles or definitions, it just stores libre media (images, videos, etc.).

I just recommend moving libre media to Commons as opposed to the Wikipedia itself because, if it's on WikiCommons, it can be used by all the other Wikimedia projects (not just Wikipedia). If you have any questions or need any further elabouration, feel free to let me know! I'll do my best to help you out. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your "dummy proof" answer! ;-) Now even I got it although english is not my native language and juridical textes (in any language) scares the hell out of me. Ok, so I am fine with your suggestion to move the picture. Have a nice weekend! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm glad I helped. :^) Thanks, and you have a great weekend too! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Did I managed the move? Shall I now remove the template? Ok, 2 questions. ;-) --Tubesship (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were very successful! I added a template to the old image to delete it from Wikipedia since it's on Commons now. Do you have any questions or concerns? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration

This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in this fair use discussion have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Glau picture caption

Hi. There's been a discussion on the Summer Glau Talk page about the term "Flanvention". Tracking through the history, it looks as if you were the editor who put this caption in. (The picture itself has changed more than once since then.) I thought it was an error for "Fanvention" when I first read it, but I am assured it is authentic. Since I started the discussion, someone has changed it to "convention", and I have reverted it. Would you be able to expand on the term? I think the best thing would be to have a section on the term in the Firefly and Serenity articles, and put a link in the Summer Glau caption.

I appreciate your comment at the top about keeping conversations on one page. I find it disorienting to have to switch back and forth to follow a thread. What looks like a response to any given comment is actually a response to a response.

Cheers. Koro Neil (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, there was a convention panel (or somesuch) where Nathan Fillion was talking, and he tried to say "Firefly fans" and instead said "Fireflans". It was a funny slip-up, but the word was claimed by the fandom and was reused to describe a Firefly-dedicated convention: a "flanvention". However, since it wasn't my photo, I just went with what the Commons' description page said: "Summer Glau (2005 Serenity Flanvention)".

As for linking to it; Flanvantion used to redirect to Browncoats' Backup Bash; when the former was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoats' Backup Bash), the redirect was as well.

Thanks for the heads-up, and I'm glad you appreciate where I'm coming from re: talk pages. If you need anything else, just lemme know. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.53.22.53

HI THOR LONG TIME NO SEE! HOW ARE YOU DOING THESE DAYS? LOOK SLIKE YOU'RE DOING WELL. TTYL ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.22.53 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 19 April 2008

Good evening 72.53.22.53; I am well, thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Ristevska

I got the image from: http://www.freewebs.com/elena_risteska/elenasbiography.htm

I am not sure how copyrights work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mactruth (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 May 2008

Well, you or I could update the image's page to reflect the source and licensing/copyright, but the image will still fail Wikipedia's criteria for using copyrighted material: for living people, only libre media and images can be used to depict them (WP:NFCC#1). I recommend reading the page Wikipedia:Image use policy to get a better idea of how to upload images, and what kinds we can and cannot accept and use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-out

Your message asked me if I wanted to opt out. However, I have already included the opt-out templates on my talk page. What else do I need to do? Anthony (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry but I have no idea about the actual functionality of the script I use. It can be found at User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js and I assume was developed by howcheng (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image I uploaded

Actually, I uploaded it from my computer, but saved the image from Kreia's article on Wookieepedia. This was my first time uploading an image. I had no idea what Iwas doing, just that it needed to be on the article, apparently since it was on Wookieepedia, it was a free image, or something, I don't know.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Image:Kreiadarknessatcore.jpg? What the image needs is an explanation as to why that copyrighted image is necessary for the article(s) in which it is used; see WP:RAT. I generally expect that since there's already copyrighted media in use to portray this fictional character, further similarly-purposed imagery would fail the non-free content criteria. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Cummings

Hey Pd THOR! Realizing that the warnings on the top of the Meg Cummings wouldn't be removed no matter what I add or change on the article, I just had to ask you what can I do to improve the article. I created the article a long time ago, and with time people added info on storylines (which now obviously is too long). The note also says that the character's notability is questionable. She was the main heroine of the show. Can you please let me know what I can do about it? Should I re-write the entire article or? Thanks in advance. Dmarex (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template merge

I've nominated Template:PresidentialCallsigns for a merge with Template:VicePresidentialCallsigns. Please come and discuss it here. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seventh generation

Hey, I put the picture up on the sevent generation page, i work for the company and was wondering if you could help me figure out how to put the picture up without causing any copy right problems, Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellealexander23 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the image is that you're claiming that the image is not copyrighted, and is a work in the public domain. However, as the logo for a company (and apparent on their website) Seventh Generation maintains the copyrights to their works.

Just working for the company (a) doesn't let you claim to release their copyrights of course and (b) causes a conflict of interest. The former is more concrete, while the latter is just something you should be aware of. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fix it? Daniellealexander23 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twister / movie plots

Hi, from your comments at Talk:Twister (1996 film) can I assume that you are in support of the edits I made? I'm trying not to get into a revert war with the anon, any deflection or constructive help would be appreciated.

Moreover, as you seem to be a regular contributor to film articles, I'm interested in your general approach to plot summaries. So many of them are bloated wiki equivalents of listening to a friend who insists on trying to relate the entire movie he saw last night over lunch in near-real time. I've tried cutting several of these down in the name of readablity and usefulness, but where to stop? (you can look at this edit to get an idea of what I mean). Is it okay to reduce four paragraphs of storm-chasing details to "the team chases a series of ever-intensifying storms"? It seems so, to me, as I think it tells all anyone needs to know, but obviously other contributors think it's important to note the make and model of every car in the movie, not to mention have a scene-by-scene recap. Jgm (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do/am. I can further if you'd like, but for now I'll just keep an eye on it.

As for the length of a plot summary, generally blow-by-blow is always going to be far too long. My goal when summarizing something's plot is to (a) try and keep it chronological, (b) make sure I hit all the important plot-significant points, (c) and keep it as concise as possible. I wrote the summaries at "33", Antitrust, and (significantly worked with) "Mortal Coil". A lot of summaries are stuffed full of extraneous minutiae and trivial details that can be trimmed leaving the meat of the plot's action; in fact, I'm frequently re-editing "33" to keep the unnecessary detail-bloat down. After reading that summary, you (I hope) know everything that was ultimately pertinent about that episode.

I'm trying to be more eloquent/helpful, but my brain's kinda mushy tonight. Let me know if you don't understand or need me to clarify anything. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asun Ortega

Hi, Thor! I have seen you around at WP:PUI - would you mind taking a look at the images on the above article? They all look suspicious to me, but I am on a public computer today (travelling) that doesn't support Javascript, and I don't feel like the hassle that goes with manual image tagging. If you also think they are unfree, would you mind processing them? Thanks, and sorry to bother you. Kelly ^hi! 13:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, totally an WP:SPA trying to circumvent WP:NFCC#1. Two of the images I found elsewhere copyrighted on the internet, so I've flagged those as copyright violations. The other two are plainly suspect because of the nature of the uploader and his now-history of uploading copyrighted material. Hey, no bother Kelly, I'm glad to help out! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thor! Don't hesitate to let me know if I can ever help out with anything in return. Oh, by the way - since you have good knowledge of copyright, would you possibly consider dropping by WP:FAC occasionally to review the copyright status of images in the FA candidates? I haven't had a lot of time for it lately, but it's enjoyable work and you get to read some interesting articles. Plus the people involved normally want to fix any copyright problems rather than attack the person who points them out. The process there is short on people with copyright expertise, especially now that Black Kite has retired - if interested, drop SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) a note. (OK, I'll take off my recruiter hat now.) Kelly ^hi! 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca_Fjelland_Davis.jpg

I am the photographer and copyright holder of this image; please let me know what I need to do to allow its use on the linked page.Sdeger (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you email permissions-en@wikimedia.org and specifically spell out your copyright claim. I've asked to hold off on the deletion for right now [1], but eventually somebody will get around to deleting it w/o any corroboration of copyright. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citing sources

{{help me}}I can't seem to find where to go to find out what to do when I have two different versions of a fact, both attributable to several reliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be a tricky question, indeed. Depending on how important this disagreement is to the article, it may be worth mentioning multiple ideas and sourcing all of them, or finding the "most reliable" idea and just mentioning that one. Which is a fairly simplistic answer, of course. In practice, this sort of issue can lead to heated arguments and is frequently sorted out on talk pages. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't particularly contentious, I just can't find one specific reliable source for the rank of John A. Bennett at his death. Some sources list Private First Class specifically, but most just say "Pvt.", which could have either intentionally meant one of two ranks of that name, or just been some journalist's shorthand for the former. The page isn't particularly active, and I don't think I would get much in the way of a reply; what do you think? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had this issue on Edward Low - there were two or three differing accounts of his death. I simply discussed the differing sources within the article. That article's now a featured article, so dealing with it in that way is very acceptable. Neıl 龱 11:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Major Payne.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice; apparently the Major Payne article had been vandalized, disincluding the image from the infobox. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy belated Fourth!

Sorry, I wasn't editing much over the holidays. Here's a nice picture for you... Kelly ^hi! 05:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww... that's hella cute. Thanks for the nice thoughts; hope you're enjoying your weekend! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Stargate

Hello, Fourthords! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Stargate, has been moved to the inactive members list, as part of a process for update the activity of the wikiproject. If you would like to continue to be an active member, please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list.

Thanks! – sgeureka ^t•c 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo

If you're interested in seeing the article, it was userified here: User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo WilyD 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I saw that in the DRV discussion, but for some reason it just didn't register with me. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes, & Infoboxes

Do you know how to make user, & or Infoboxes??

And if you've been to my userpage before go marking my picture of the cali/commie flag I did create that using microsoft paint.--Subman758 (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't know anything about making infoboxes, they require a lot coding knowledge that I lack. As for userboxes, they're just basic templates; I think WP:GUS has information about making them—it used to.

As for Image:Flag of Communist California.jpeg, while I don't understand it's insinuations, it is just a combination of two libre elements making it libre itself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try living in California, and you will understand its exact insinuations.--Subman758 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel icon

There is a discussion about this at Template talk:Nobel icon. Would appreciate your input. Zaian (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on developing a consensus on the future of the Nobel icon template. Your opinion is welcome at Template talk:Nobel icon. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon

Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eustress (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airman Basic

Hi, Thor! Sorry for the delayed reply - I was sidetracked with family issues and with the article on John Edwards extramarital affair, which ate up a lot of my time lately. I didn't have any other concrete suggestions for the Airman Basic article except the one that I made on the talk page. It did make me realize, though, that we don't have an article for USAF Basic Military Training, only a paragraph in the Recruit training article. And all the other U.S. services have articles on their basic training! This cannot stand! Airpower - Kelly ^hi! 15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take back the "no suggestion" part, I just thought of something - maybe an interesting fact would be that military ~~prisoners~~ convicts are reduced to the rank of Airman Basic when they're sent off to break rocks. But I'm not sure where to find a reference for that. Kelly ^hi! 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I agree re: BMT not having its own article, but that's a project for another day. Military convicts are commonly, and maybe usually reduced to E-1, but I don't know if that's a stipulation. I imagine it's up to the sentencing authority to make that decision, but I'll look into it—Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Guider

Hi. You left a tag on the above article, saying it may have excessive use of non-free images. Am trying to work this out. I thought I had done all the required red tape for fair use when I uploaded the images, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

A while back, someone put a tag on the images saying they needed to have the source of the images described in the fair use rationale, but it already is (no. 10 in the list of ten points in the rationale). They also said it needs to mention all copyright info, but I'm not sure what this means.

Can you shed some light?

Sardaka (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there's a lot of imagery problems with that article. I find Image:MichaelGuider2.jpg fails WP:NFCC#1 as the subject is alive and only reasonably difficult to photograph; if the attempts to secure such libre material have already been made and failed, then that argument should also be applied into the rationale. With regards to the same image, it should be cropped to the subject it's illustrating and lowered in resolution to meet WP:NFCC#3a. As for Image:SamanthaKnight1.jpg, as the individual portrayed is not the focus of the article, and there's no prose to indicate her illustration or appearance is particularly notable, it fails WP:NFCC#8 for its use. Saying it's significant to the article without demonstrating the same doesn't meet muster. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]