User talk:Anetode/archive 4

Someone removing all of our image contributions

Hi, user 71.116.244.56 just removed all of our image contributions today (Aug 14, 2006). He cites 'spam' as being the reasons for doing so. We'd like to keep contributing more images, and I have a few more to put up, but I need to know if protecting our expensive imagery by gracing it with a watermark is spam or if this is just a case of inexperienced editing from an anonymous user. Please let me know via a comment on our talk page or an email if the watermarks on our images are okay or if we need to be a little more discreet about protecting our imagery.

Thanks!

3dscience 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Not Putting Artist Portraits into the Public Domain.

Please take a look at the 'contribs' of this user: 17:25, November 8, 2006 Taekowndodogoof (Talk | contribs) and you'll see why I'm unlikely to contrib images other than PhotoArt in the future. Dwightmccann 00:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just left the following message for Commander Keane:

"I read the image usage policy quickly and did not see any specifics about attribution in captions. Since it is clearly trivial for someone to replace my images with copies of themselves but without appropriate attribution metadata as was the case with Ana Gabriel, I find the suggestion that attribution should not accompany images in articles unresponsive. In all works, including encyclopedias, in which images are used, photocredit exists ... it is like any art: we do not generally see paintings or sculpture shown anonymously. However, I can see there is considerable stress in this area, which explains why there are so few quality images of Performing Artists available here. My intentions with regard to Wikipedia were to share high quality images of major artists for public use, but not without acknowledgement. This is clearly not an appropriate medium and my contributions were ill considered. I will "Be Bold" via a Google sitemap to my images instead. I apologize for taking up your time." Dwightmccann 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RachelWood.png

Thanks for uploading Image:RachelWood.png. 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}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source 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, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks for your comments at my requests, hopefully I will not disappoint you, and work even harder to demonstrate I am, at least, slightly (very slightly!) more useful now to the community. ReyBrujo 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

You are the biggest contributor of the article about the seventh-generation console, Xbox 360! s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 02:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

COPE (film) restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Stop It. --TractorYob 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt do anything wrong. --TractorYob 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with that. --TractorYob 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep on vandalizing like that and you'll get yourself blocked. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with that photo, its not vandalism. I refuse accept that I vandalised. This is wankyfied. --TractorYob 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're this bored, try uncyclopedia ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Salmotisfied and Uninaccurated! I demand an apoligy. --TractorYob 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to MJK article

Hey, sorry for the late reply, but i'm not that much of a Wikipedia editer. I will provide the link, and hopefully you can determine the copyright status. If it works out fine, we can change the template for the image ([[2]] and reput the image back on the Maynard James Keenan article.

It's from a myspace page - [3]

Thanks, —Hadiahmed (talk • contribs)

I have read your reply, and thank you for determining the copyright status. I still remain confused about the fact the article has no proper picture, only a small army photo. Still, thanks for your help, and about the signature. MC-Shado 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mute Math

Thank you, and by the way... I was curious. Are you a Wikipedia administrator as well as user? (That's a lot of archived discussion pages for run-of-the-mill editing). :-) Souldier77 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well so far, I'm only about a month into my obsession. You've been doing this a year and a half. Can you give me a clue as to whether or not you get anywhere frittering time away with indulging every anal retentive desire you have to correct inane things that don't matter and prove you're right? 'Cause if you don't, my next Google research project will be searching for a "Wikipedia Anonymous Treatment Center". — Souldier77 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Free periodic psychoanalyses? That's enough for me. I'm in. — Souldier77 16:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

File:Julekort.jpg

Wishing you a Happy Holidays
from s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays!!23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your signature!

Re: In the spirit of brevity being the soul of wit, I award you...

Thank you, haha, that made my night, mate. Happy Holidays--Jude 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of my user page

Hi there. Thanks for the revert. --TheParanoidOne 11:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Eugene Nalimov

Thanks for your message. I think that the ChessBase award demonstrates that Eugene Nalimov is notable, so I have removed the prod. I am not an expert in computer chess, so you may want to discuss this with someone who is an expert. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kimberly Franklin

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Kimberly Franklin, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What?

Please do not add {{PUIdisputed}} tag into pictures that I took from [4] and [5] web sites. defence.lk clearly say that Reproduction of news items are permitted when used without any alterations to contents and the source on the bottom of the web page and I already remark that on the pictures that I have took as well and I didn't do any alterations to contents and the source.[6] Army.lk says that Contents of this site are the sole property of Sri Lanka Army and any duplication in any media is liable for prosecution.Reproduction of these465 stories/data is possible provided its source is given its recognition, so I state on my pictures as This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that Source is given its recognition, and I gave the recognition by palcing the URL on source section.[7]

So hereby I kindly ask from you to remove that template from those pictures. Thank you, Happy editing!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:194.72.81.129

Hi Anetode, I'd suggest leaving this user alone. He's already blocked for a month, ignoring him is the surest way to get him to go away. Please see WP:DFTT. Thanks, Gwernol 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just seems like all we're going to get from that one is abuse. Sigh. Gwernol 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Zanzibar leopard image

That was fast! You must be a machine ;-) Being a newbie I was just struggling to find the right license and tag - there should be a simpler decision tree for legal-language challenged folks like me! Zahir Mgeni 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely give Commons a go with images that I've created myself. Zahir Mgeni 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Contacting About Edits Made to A Article

Hi, I am contacting you regarding your edits to the National Institute on Media and the Family page, and am requesting that you please stop. Thank You, J. Gisler IT Manager/Webmaster (Jgisler596 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) = Jgisler596 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)).

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rachel weisz.jpg

Listen, if you wanna delete the image and find an alternative one, knock yourself out. Knowing your type of editor however, I'll wager you're just gonna delete the image and move on. I'm sick of being lectured by you fair-use-letter-of-the-law types, to the point where I stopped uploading what wasn't public domain or self-created months ago to avoid this shit, yet you still come back to bug me. However, I must give you snaps for being on the ball, especially since it seems that I uploaded that image 364 days ago. Cornell Rockey 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed your halo. I award you the barnstar of saints who do the dirty work. Cornell Rockey 04:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

NYkid0709

Regarding this, I have no doubt. The edits are exactly the same. I'm pretty sure 123wiki123 (talk · contribs) and all those anonymous IPs that were making the same edit recently to the Xbox 360 article are the same user. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy?

Userfy what is it? and how do you do it?--Lucy-marie 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

reading the policy page just confised me so could you please demonstrate with this template. Template:Nuclear Bomb Supporter?--Lucy-marie 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I move it to my name space?--Lucy-marie 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

National Institute on Media and the Family edit conflicts

FYI, I happened on the edit conflicts on this page while browsing through the encyclopedia. I left a message on jgisler596's talk page, informing her of the WP policies on conflict of interest, as she is apparently the IT director and webmaster for the organization. Pastordavid 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your intervention on the Face article - I will take your suggestion to heart. SparrowsWing _(talk) 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Best method

on such rework seems to be slap an Inuse tag on it, and link from inside the tag to a user page with a statement exactly of how large an edit you are envisioning. Such can even be multi-line using {{i}}, {{I2}} or just html's <'br'>.
   That method bypasses the occasional charge you see in CFR's and ArbCom proceedings about an editor totally replacing content with a new page. It's best to leave an outline of what you are planning and doing on the talk first. This way you warned them, so to speak. If a new article, those can be created off in user space and moved to main space when eady for prime time, or other's attentions. Best regards // FrankB 06:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Best method

re: Thanks for the suggestion. I usually just draft something out in notepad and leave a note at the talk page, the comments on {{work}} mean merely that I think contributors should be given a wide breadth w/r/t editing techniques. Most times such maintenance templates are only applied to pet articles which tend to stay out of the limelight, editing conflicts only sprout up with rewrites of high-profile or controversial articles. Since those are constantly undergoing revision anyway, maintenance tag usage intractably becomes a moot point. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but you have to face the fact the milieu is filled with young bucks who haven't learned the value of giving someone slack. Many are still in a confused state as to when rules are hard and fast things, and when such can be side-stepped for the big cause. Shrug. Not much we can do but give them time. Add in the 'mystique and alure' of chasing the 'Admin' title, and some of them are vexingly lawyerish. I haven't seen so much alphabet soup since I last worked on a government project. Alias templates? No Way! Yet take a look at the combo's of shortcuts, and the extended principle never crosses their minds! Nothing ten years of blood and sweat in the real world shouldn't cure. But alas, those in government jobs and academia may never learn such things! <G> Best wishes // FrankB 08:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (w/xpost)

Kim Deal image

Feel free to delete the Kim Deal image; it's been replaced by a free image (that you placed on the page :)). CloudNine 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Barkley

The image was shown on TV, and Charles Barkley himself said it would be on the internet that night. It has nothing to do with vandalism.

--Markoh19 07:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wolf3djaguarcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wolf3djaguarcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(!)

Will you stop this 'war'? What are you trying to prove? I have my own photo with Jonathan Davis and I will post it here, if I will be forced to do it, if any means of proving any images I can use there will fail. Broken soul 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnetha_F%C3%A4ltskog, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Araya - they also don't have the photos properly tagged, why didn't you enforce Wikipedia policy there? Broken soul 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I share no hard feelings, but I want make it clear in the first place. I am studying English studies, but this all copyrighting policy is more than vague to me, and to make the matter worse there is no translation to it, I don't understand most of the phrases related to the licensings policies and even some of my native English or American friends neither. I would like, with your help (because as I see you, seem to be very intelligent, and dilligent person), find some alternative picture, because I feel dissatisfied with this picture, like most of people visiting this site  :), because it's distorting his public image, and it, in my opinion, would be better to leave this person without a photo rather than putting the one that distorts his public image, even though there are no issues with copyrights. Jonathan Davis is very unphotogenic person, and I think a very careful steps must be taken not to distort his public image. Thank you in advance Broken soul 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed information. At the second thought, I'm sorry not to being polite changing justification of the picture I uploaded as well as a couple times before, I was angry mastodon :) but I really adore the band. It's 0:46 am in my timezone, I'll read your guide during the day. Thank you once again. Goodnight. Broken soul 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I spy with my eye something beginning with M :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CavaleraRootsBloodyRoots.jpg Broken soul 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wakinglifepic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wakinglifepic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image: Spacecataz.jpg

I never said I was using it under fair-use. I said it was taken from Flickr. No matter, it has be repleaced by a better image taken from WBZ-TV (credit given on page and on image). - SVRTVDude 03:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your changes as images are not fair-use and were not credited as such. My image is directly from WBZ-TV. That is a TV screenshot, NOT fair-use....OK? These are free..many sites are using them with no problems. - SVRTVDude 03:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are taken via the free airwaves, hence free. - SVRTVDude 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Right...and I pay the TV stations for the use of the free airwaves. OK.....then give me proof that you image is not fair-use as well. Someone has already readded my images, yours (that I took down due to conflict of interest) and another. - SVRTVDude 03:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I don't like to threatened. I am not violating any policy and if you check my contribs I, on a regular basis, uphold the rules, fight vandalism, and make sure things move smoothly....if you and I have different opinions on what the "fair-use" rule means and how it affects TV screenshots doesn't mean you can threaten me with suspension or banning as I am trying to provide as much accurate and up-to-date information as I can find (and be it pictures from WBZ) and post them as quickly as possible. - SVRTVDude 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

...and I apologize for getting snippy. I have been having an on-going issue with User: A Man In Black over images for TV and radio stations (TV and Radio Logos from the past) that he is deleting. Some of which have been on Wiki for years and most are probably beyond any copyright...and as I told him, I kinda doubt station WXXX cares if their logo is up on Wiki, as long as it is not in a bad way. My apologizes, dealing with that (and some of the work I put into finding those images) I went a little overboard and getting an attitude that wasn't necessary.

I retracted my 3RR warning...you retracted yours...we call a truce? - SVRTVDude 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Box on ATHF

It could be too much extra info, but I added "(from ATHF)" to the image box. Just in case some people haven't found out that Ignignokt is from ATHF, as he is not listed on the main ATHF page. I will let you decide how to go with that one....cause it could be monotious (sp) or helpful. - SVRTVDude 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)