User talk:J Milburn/archive26

Inocybe lacera

Hi JM, I am greedily eyeing the above solid article as a future "drive-by" GAN. Shall I put your name on the GAN nomination after I buff up the sources? How long it might be sitting at GAN is a different matter, but I'm thinking sometime soon I'll review a dozen other articles and hope that some other reviewers take pity on me :) Sasata (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WGBC

Up a little early aren't we? Anywho, the reason is because the station carries that network (networks in this case) on a subchannel. The subchannel is part of the main channel's signal, hence the logo exsists there. England doesn't have subchannel, hell they don't have digital television, America does...Wikipedia and WP:TVS grew with the times. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

First, let's keep this on one page. I have you on my watchlist, pings won't be needed. Second...try going back to sleep, all is well, I haven't burnt down Wikipedia. Third, according to the admin I talked to, one you brought into mediate things, that if the image exsists right now, it should remain and be put in a subsection of it's own, be it about the station or about Digital Television. If it doesn't exsist, the image doesn't get in. So, these already exsist, they are in. Subchannel pages are being made, even though they are not necessary under WP:TVS rules and guidelines, they are being made anyway. According to the admin, while the pages are being made, the already exsisting images stay. You aren't edit warring against me, but against the words of another admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, show me where it says an image has to be discussed? This is new on me and you are the only one I have heard that wants a picture discribed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't bring anyone in- Zscout joined the issue of his own accord, I didn't ask him for any help (though I did discuss the matter with him and others when he had made the edit, as I know you did). Secondly, regardless of any discussion you may have had with anyone else, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why the secondary logo (on both WGBC and WTOV-TV) is actually adding to the article- when these articles are about the station, why is it so important to see the logo used by the network? There is no requirement for an image to be discussed- there's no need to discuss the main logo, for instance- I'm just trying to find some reason to justify the logo. The point is, in order to justify the use of this image, you're going to need to demonstrate that the logo itself is of significance to the parent article, and, one would have thought, if it was genuinely that important, it would warrant discussion in the article. J Milburn (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am going to be nice and explain this since you are from England and they don't have DTV yet. You should understand this, but whatever.

Here we have WXXX-TV Channel 2. The station is an ABC affiliate on it's main signal, which is called 2.1. On a subchannel on the same signal, 2.2, the station is also a The CW affiliate. Both networks are broadcast off the same signal, but on subchannels.

So, when someone builds the WXXX-TV page, they would add the logo for the main ABC station and the subchannel CW station. They are both on the same signal, but different subchannels.

Hopefully you understood that, cause I ain't explaining it any better.

Also, was this really necessary? This is "almost pathetic"? I am not the one who wants a picture discribed in words. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is almost pathetic we've got such a fight going over these little logos- surely you agree with that? I understand that the subchannel is part of the station, but that doesn't automatically mean that this logo is legit- yes, discuss the subchannel, by all means, but what the logo looks like just doesn't matter. When these substations are so minor that they don't even warrant a separate article, I just can't see why you believe we should be using these logos. There's no automatic entitlement to a non-free image, least of all when the article is not even about what the image shows/represents. Again, consider albums/singles, corporations/subsidiaries, companies/products... The child subject is worth discussing in the parent article, but there is no urgent need for them to be represented pictorially. J Milburn (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What you aren't understanding is they do warrant an article, they just haven't been made yet. I can't pull an article out of thin air. There is one...ONE...person making articles for subchannels. There is normally only one or two people doing something in WP:TVS, so it isn't unusual, but we can't ask that person to work non-stop to get articles for the couple thousand subchannels. We also have to look at the rules of WP:TVS that say a subchannel article isn't technically required and the image can stay on the main channel's article since it is part of the main channel. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If they do warrant a subarticle, then the image should be in the subarticle, rather than the main article. If a subarticle does not exist yet, that's fine, I know we're a work in progress, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the logo should be in the parent article. Do you just intend to leave it lying somewhere it isn't needed until someone gets around to writing the article? J Milburn (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well according to Zscout, if the image exsists right now, the image should be moved to a section on the main channel page while the subchannel article is built. There was no time limit given, since we have just the one person. So, for now, yeah, they just stay where they are. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether another article exists has nothing to do with whether an image meets the NFCC in a certain article. The logo would be removed from the article once it had somewhere else to go, and so it should be removed now, as we should not leave non-free images in an article just for the sake of them not being deleted. I'm happy to restore the images for you if/when they're needed if they get deleted. J Milburn (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)But there is no need for deletion. There is no policy currently in the rule book that states that Infoboxes can only have one image. None. This is just more "one-image-per-page" deletionism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is a rule that says non-free images should not be used unless they are required. You seem quite happy to accept that the image would be removed from the article once the subarticle was created, and so it seems the only reason you want the logo in the article for now is so that it is not deleted, which clearly has nothing to do with our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because once the subchannel article is made, it isn't needed on the main channel page anymore. It has a page of its own. There is no reason to delete, which seems to be all you want is just to delete it and move on, you even said so yourself. There is nothing in NFCC (wait, I will let you find something) that says two images can't be in an infobox at the same time or that the image can't sit there while the subchannel page is made. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If the image is not needed in the article later, it is not needed there now. We do not use non-free images in articles while we are waiting for another article to be created, we use non-free content in articles because they add significantly to that article. J Milburn (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I need you to do me a favor. Walk into your bedroom, look on your pillow and see if you brain is still there, cause I think it leaked out of your head over night. Try to say this without shouting...it is needed NOW, but once the subchannel page is made it WON'T be cause there is a page of its own. Got it now? Found your brain yet? Sheesh! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how you can't see this. We use non-free content if it significantly increases reader understanding of the topic, yes? How can you argue it significantly improves that article if you just intend to remove it anyway? J Milburn (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because we aren't technically removing it, it is just being transfered from one page to another. What you are proposing is a complete removal. The image does increase the reader's understanding (and don't say it doesn't unless you have mindreading powers) as it shows them that this is the logo currently in use by the subchannel. We can't do it with galleries, but we can do it with main and subchannel images. Why delete something we are going to readd back anyway when the page is made? Silly isn't it? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So, for instance, you would advocate having album covers on artist pages if there was no album article, in the hope an album article would be created in the future? I'm sorry, this just isn't the way things are done. We use non-free content because it is needed in the article in which it is placed, not because it may be used usefully at some point in the future. If you accept that the logo would not belong in the article if we had a page for the entity the logo represents, then, sorry, but you're just going to have to accept that the logo should be removed now. I am not advocating deletion of the image (that is a byproduct, simply because the logo is orphaned) I am advocating removal from the page. I am not out to delete content, I am out to ensure that the use of non-free content complies with out NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I am advocating that it be left be, as it complies with NFCC, and there is no reason to remove something just to upload it again when a subchannel page is made. I am advocating that is be left be, because there is no rule saying it can't be there. I am advocating it be left be because hell, it isn't causing the project or the Foundation any problems or harm. You are the only person this is bothering. Only one. Galleries, you had backing, you don't in this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If the image met the NFCC, you would want it to stay when the subpage was removed. The fact you feel it should be removed when another article is created shows that you do not genuinely feel it is necessary- if it was, it would be required regardless of what other images were needed. J Milburn (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I feel is necessary or what I am thinking. You know exactly why it wouldn't be allowed on both the main page and subchannel pages. You can't quote policy that it is violating cause it isn't. It never has. We can't touch the damned thing anyway (either page) due to 3RR, so this is moot for the next 22 1/2 hours anyway. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact we've been forced to edit war is all the more reason to discuss this- I find it slightly alarming you believe we shouldn't be discussing the matter because we can't edit the page. What you're saying is, frankly, nonsense. We both accept that the image would not be used on the article if there was another article in which it could appear. However, the fact that this other article does not exist has no bearing at all on whether the image meets the NFCC in this article. We both know that the image should not be there, it should be elsewhere. The fact that elsewhere does not yet exist should not stop us from removing it from this improper usage. J Milburn (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is you want to delete something, then when that elsewhere appears, have that exact image be reuploaded? Am I following you correctly? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to remove an image from an improper usage. If it ends up deleted as an orphan, then so be it. If it is then needed again, it can be reuploaded or restored as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That is just monotonous, dude. There should be no reason (and isn't) to delete something, then reupload it...especially when it isn't violating any policy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it may sound wasteful, but the point is that we have our non-free content criteria, and we should do our best to respect them. We both accept the image is not required on this article (you even said it "wouldn't be allowed on both the main page and subchannel pages"), therefore, regardless of whether a subarticle page exists (which is irrelevent to this discussion) it should be removed. There's not really any further discussion to be had- that is the position in which we have found ourselves. Do you not agree? J Milburn (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You don't want to discuss it further that is fine, but I stand by what I have said and what I feel. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree with my summary above? J Milburn (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it but that is not to say I agree to the image is to be deleted. That maybe backwards, but I stand by it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So you agree with the removal of the image from the article, but not with its deletion as an orphan? J Milburn (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed or deleted. I got an idea. Why not "hide" the image with the hide codes, so it remains on Wikipedia, but it hidden from view. Keeps it here, but takes it from view. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It would still be picked up by the bots. I don't really think there is a way to keep the image here without using it in an article. Honestly, as I say, it takes a fraction of a second to restore a deleted image- if/when it is needed, just ping any admin and they'll restore it for you. J Milburn (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually have an image hidden on my user page for another user (for when they want to use it) and the bots haven't found that in almost 2 years :) I beginning to think the user isn't going to want it. Anyway, you want to delete it, fine whatever, it is wasteful, completely unnecessary, has no consensus to back it up and is violating no policy, including NFCC, but sure you want to delete it, you go right on ahead. It is nearing my bedtime here and this conversation is boring the piss outta me (American expression). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it breaks no policy (we seem to be agreed that this usage is not necessary per the NFCC) but I'm glad you're now happy for the images to be removed. I will remove them now. J Milburn (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. It seems to me quite a stretch to go from "it wouldn't be allowed on both a main page and a subchannel page" to "even if there is no subchannel page, it can't appear on the main page". There is ample precedent for secondary identifying images for items which are significant, and related but different to that identified by the first image: for example, the consensus to show alternate covers for variants of a single recorded by different artists, or with significantly different content. Also, as Masem has been noting recently, some of these subjects are much better dealt with in concentrated in a single article, rather than proliferated across a raft of mini-articles, which makes it much harder to get an overall view. Since the digital extra channel and the main channel are so closely related, sharing all the same ownership, management, administration, and technical signal broadcasting, it makes a lot of sense to treat them together. We accept that showing how a channel identifies itself is a worthwhile addition to reader understanding, easily balancing what is a fairly minimal copyright taking given that the image is deliberately propagated to create an image that can as widely and readily associated with the channel as possible. That is why, compared to other kinds of images, the "Acceptable Use" section of WP:NFC is comparatively more permissive of logos; and so, given the precedent of other kinds of alternate identifying images, showing the sub-channel logo seems entirely in the spirit both of WP:NFC and other existing use based on it. Jheald (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying could be true, but you're missing something- the logos do not represent the same thing. The main logo represents the subject of the article, the secondary logo represents something linked with the channel. Your album cover analogy is not sound- these are not two logos for the same thing. A better comparison is the one I used above- we do not use the covers of singles on the article about the album, and we do not use album covers on the artist page just because the album article does not yet exist. I have no opinion on whether the subchannel should have an article- I'm happy to defer to NeutralHomer there, and he assures me it should. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I said this in the other discussion but it looks like you did not see that so will say this again, there should not be an article B as there is only 1 station (WTOV-TV) with 1 licence that broadcasts 2 subchannels (9.1 and 9.2) so logo b should be in the article as logo b "helps the reader identify the organization" by showing "the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" as the organization (WTOV-TV) has 2 intended branding messages in a way that words alone could not convey (the branding message on 9.1 and the branding message on 9.2) so the article needs logo a and b to identify the organization. Powergate92Talk 18:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the substation is not in itself notable is not important. If anything, it adds to the fact that the logo is probably not important. We don't even consider the subject important enough to give it its own article, but you still think we need to use a non-free image "by default" in the article? Yes, the logo of the subject, but the logo of subsidaries? Again- we don't use the logo of Asda in Walmart, we don't use single covers in album articles... If the subject itself is not worthy of full coverage, the image used to represent it is going to need to be particularly significant in order to justify its use. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The rationale on the logo says how the logo is significant as the rationale says "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." We do use 2 cover in a article for a single as we also use an alternate cover e.g. in the article for Journey through the Decade. Powergate92Talk 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is faulty- these are not two logos for the same thing. One is the logo of the "parent", one the logo of the "child". You're speaking as if they're both logos of the parent. I refer you again to my post made at 01:31, 20 August 2009. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No the 2 logos are for the station (the parent) as there is only 1 station with 1 licence that broadcasts 2 subchannels not 2 stations owned by 1 company with 1 article. Powergate92Talk 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is semantics. This is why I used the notation above. Please note the post from 01:31, 20 August 2009. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I did it right?

The first step of deletion review is talking to the closing administrator- asking them to reconsider and offering your reasons. Note that deletion review is not just a "second go" at deletion- instead, it is for when a closure has been made incorrectly. As such, you would have to focus on how the primary argument was not responded to- no one offered an explanation of why the image was actually needed, they only discussed the importance of the campaign, and why it was irreplaceable; neither of which featured in the nomination statement. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the guy went back and restored the picture of the playing soldiers, and was reluctant to keep going on the old discussion he formerly shutdown by (temporally) deleting the image, I had to go to deletion review. Is my nomination ok? --Damiens.rf 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

dcgeist (RKO Pictures)

Dcgeist loves starting edit wars and enjoys being nasty to as many other users as possible. Is there anything that can be done to control his negative urges? B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WAQZ logos

I was very disappointed to see that you recently deleted the WAQZ station logos that I uploaded a long time ago. I thought they provided proper illustration for the article and were quite useful as indicators of the visual identity that local listeners identified with the station over the years. Where a block of text can only describe so much, a logo might instantly bring to a reader's mind images of that logo on stickers, billboards, t-shirts, signs, and other tangible items from years gone by. The reader will then connect those memories to the further information they're reading in the article about the station. Unfortunately, you disagree, and browsing through your talk page, you seem pretty adamant about these things. I want to pose this question to you: Do you think that all logos should be removed from every TV and/or radio station article on Wikipedia? To take it one step further, are you of the opinion that all non-free logos for any product or service should be banned from Wikipedia? If not, why do you single out certain ones for removal? How do you come to your decisions and what actions can I take to avoid a near-instant reversal of my contributions? --Samvscat (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored them. Milburn doesn't speak for the WP:WPRS community and should not be deleting images (and edit warring over them) from radio station articles. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, you just crossed the line into the realms of stalking. Leave me the Hell alone. I'm under no impression I talk for anyone, and your slanderous nonsense whenever you decide to pick a fight is getting tiring. Back off. Samvscat- no, I am not under the impression every logo should be removed from Wikipedia. However, logos that are copyrighted must be used in compliance with our non-free content criteria- specifically, I am removing these logos with regards to point 3 and point 8. There is a long-standing consensus that the current logo does add significantly to the article, and should be displayed prominently in the infobox. However, these random historical logos seem mostly decorative- unless the historical logo itself is in some way significant, then it should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Betcee may aug08 by-studioimago.jpg

You asked if I am C. Owen Johnson of Studio Imago. Yes, I am. --Imago101 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WAQZ

When I see something that comes across my watchlist, I act. My area of expertise is radio and television stations. What I have a problem with is user like yourself using his admin tools to overpower people in discussion, remove images without need or violation of policy, and edit war the whole way. You do not speak for the radio or television station WikiProjects, this is your own copyright paranoia vendetta. You want me to leave you alone, fine. But as long as you continue to edit radio and television station pages, we will continue to bump into each other, just a matter of fact. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would request that you unprotect this page. Using your admin tools to protect a page you are in dispute in, is a clear violation of the use of those very tools and something people have been desysoped for. Tread lightly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Protecting a page when IP addresses repeatedly add non-free content that is clearly not needed without any attempt to engage in conversations or even use edit summaries is not in any way a bad action. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Clearly not needed"....according only to you. No one else is saying this and you have no policy to back this up. You are in a losing battle. Betacommand did this, he lost his adminship, got blocked, came back on big restrictions....A Man In Black did this, he lost his adminship and hasn't returned. You are going down the same path and it doesn't bode well for you, especially when you have no policy to back it up, you are against consensus that exists, you refuses to establish consensus on your side and legal counsel (yeah, I am bringing that up again) is against you on this one. You + All That = Losing Battle. I think it is time for you to pack it in and move on to another part of the Wiki. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of people removing non-free galleries, the fact there aren't many others in your little corner of Wikipedia doesn't really concern me. You don't like our policies, try and change them, stop bothering me. This is a losing battle, yes, because I have to spend so much of my time dealing with people who I would rather just went away and never edited Wikipedia again. I really, really don't need your advice about what is legitimate and what is not. I've managed alright so far, and I don't intend to get blocked/sanctioned in the future. Again, our non-free content criteria have consensus, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the legal counsel. It doesn't matter whether this is legal; I really, really, really struggle to see how you can't fathom that. I would tell you to not talk to me again, or that I will ignore any future comments mentioning legality, but that hasn't worked in the past. I guess I can just hope. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo licensing

Hey Milburn. How goes it?

Do photos have to be licensed commercially to be used (if they don't meet fair use guidelines)? What about derivative works? Do they have to allow for that kind of use?

I see there is a "the copyright user gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia article". Is that legitimate?

And finally, what's your take on people's faces being pictured in photos. I try to kind of avoid that in case they don't want to be in the encyclopedia, but if they are in the background it is what it is. Thanks for any insights you can give me. Thanks brother. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not related to a specific photograph. Just trying to get some photos from Flickr and not everyone wants to allow commercial licensing. So I just wanted to make sure on the rules. Thanks very much. Very helpful. Party on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jetix (UK & Ireland)

Yes we do need the logo as it "help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey." Powergate92Talk 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And let's keep this on the Jetix (UK & Ireland) talk page. Powergate92Talk 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Did you learn nothing from your break? The images are needed and wanted and you are the only user who is removing them, against consensus and edit warring about them. I suggest you take a longer break, get your head out of that "area", and come back with fresh eyes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who wants the images, and they certainly aren't needed. I'm removing images for a wide variety of reasons- that kind of statement shows you're simply blindly pro-NFC, which is not what Wikipedia is about. I took a break because I was getting sick of dealing with people like you, not because I thought I was making a mistake... J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not caring who wants the images is going to get you desysoped and probably blocked. You are doing this outside consensus and edit warring the whole way, the latter you just don't seem to understand. If you are "sick of dealing with people", maybe it is time to find a new project. Wikipedia isn't a requirement, you don't have to be here. See that red "X" at the top of the screen, click it and do all of us a favor. We are tried of cleaning up your mess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not actually how it works. We enforce policy, no matter how many people don't like it, until said policy is changed. I'm not here to pander to what other people want. You constantly mention how I'm going to get desysoped and blocked and whatnot, and, frankly, it's getting a little boring. As ever, I am willing to discuss these issues, but I'm not willing to sit and listen to this rubbish again. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have discussed policy with you, on numerous occasions, when faced with the truth you put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALACANTHEARYOULALALALA". You want people to explain a picture in prose. Allow me to be frank if I may, but that is the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. You don't explain a picture, that is why it is a picture.

You don't explain this image as a "circular red orb with a narrow number nine in the center with the letters "WUSA" from the left hand side and the CBS Television Network symbol between the "W" and "U"." No, you just put the damned picture up. No explanation needed. Why would you expect someone to explain what doesn't need to be explained?

Why I keep bringing up desysoping is because that is what happened to the last two users who tried this, without consensus. Betacommand (desysoped and blocked, later brought back under tight restrictions) and A Man In Black (desysoped, never returned) both tried to do this "cleanup", as you call it, and were handly smacked by all sides for it and later lost their adminship with the "cleanup" as part of the reason. I am trying to get you to see the path you are going down, but you aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Oh well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I don't care about your worries about me finding myself desysoped/blocked. Don't worry about that; I don't want to hear any more about it. As for your "describing images" thing, no, that's not what I want. I want evidence that the logos themselves are significant. Have they been covered in reliable sources? Is there some reason to believe they are particularly important? Discussing an image in the prose (who designed it, public response to the logo, that sort of thing) along with an image of the logo is obviously useful. A random "here's what a logo they used at the time looked like" image is obviously not useful. I'm not quite sure why you can't see that distinction. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Source can be provided, would be unheard of to source an image, but it can be done. But you are the only one who is asking for these unnecessary additions to the page. No other user is or should. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a source of the image, I'm asking for evidence that the image is necessary in the article and of importance- typically, this would be demonstrated by sourced discussion. I admit, at times, this may be a stretch, but that's the point- if it's such a stretch to provide this discussion, it's fairly clear that the image is of no importance. (Also, I don't care if I'm the only one asking you to deal with this issue- just because you and the editors with which you usually work aren't particularly good with our NFCC, doesn't mean everyone is. Why don't you forget about me, and focus on the issue? As I've demonstrated before, if we're doing a showdown with regards to who is more respected, it's fairly clear who would win... Thankfully, I don't really care, and I'd rather just stick to the issue at hand.) J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, first you say you want an explanation, now you don't. Above you say you want sources, now you don't. Now you want sourced discussion. What the hell do you want exactly? You aren't making much sense dude. Oh and on that last part, the "if we're doing a showdown with regards to who is more respected, it's fairly clear who would win" part....ego much? I think with regards to that, it is time for you to walk away if you believe Wikipedia is some competition for you to win. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what? I honestly think you're not reading anything I post. I have said all along what I want- sourced discussion. It's always been the same thing. As for the second part, I clarified I don't care, and I only posted that because you just refuse to get the message that it doesn't matter if I'm the only one, it doesn't matter if you think I'm going to get blocked; if you want to discuss this matter, discuss the issue, stop with the constant swiping. Seriously, when you post messages like that, I get the impression you're being deliberately awkward. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) No, I am just repeating what you post. I could get links to your posts where you say these things, but it is 7:30am here and I haven't had coffee yet (read: lazy). I don't "refuse to get the message", I just refuse to get your version of the message. I subscribe to the notion that these images are OK as they are and have been approved by the powers that be and violate no policy...alot of people subscribe to that notion as well. We happen to be right...and we have the consensus to back that up. You have no consensus, you are off doing this all "willy-nilly" and refuse to get your own consensus relying instead on what you feel is right. Well, buckwheat, ya ain't right. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. So you feel this constant swiping is appropriate? As in, fuck the issue, this is J Milburn saying this, so let's swipe him instead? And, no, sorry, you happen to be wrong there. There are very few powers that be, but those powers that are happen to have endorsed our non-free content criteria, and, surprise surprise, there happens to be a consensus for them. If you want to change that, go and change that. You want to swipe me, move away. You want to discuss the issue, you're welcome here. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Only you have no proof of this consensus, I do. Oh well. Funny how you take a couple swipes at me and run away like a little school girl. Nice. Swipe, run. Good fun. I have many things to do, I figure you have work to do (or do you consider Wikipedia a job?) and we will continue this later. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank Matthews

Hey what the hell man? I was going to add my sources, I was in the process of doing so, now I lost everything I worked on? Talking about the Frank Matthews article. That was really not cool of you...I have NONE of my work now. That will be the last time I ever contribute a damn article on here. You couldn't have sent me a message or something about the cites before just hastily deleting EVERYTHING? I have multiple sources and can back up every single thing I say with a verifiable and reputable source. jlcoving (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know where to respond so I guess here -- YES, I would very much like both pages. I was literally in the process of just writing all my sources down in a central location and organizing them before adding them. Doing the cites always takes me the longest because I don't know the codes to use for them (especially repetitive ones), so I always add info first then do them last. I mean I had seriously just created the article less than 24 hours ago! My email is johncov@gmail.com jlcoving (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me my work at least. I was pretty pissed off there for a second when I thought everything I had put down was lost forever. jlcoving (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WJBK

Hi, the reason you removed those images was because they were in a gallery, correct? I re-inserted them as thumbnails spread throughout the article, which as far as I know is ok. There are other articles with logos in them like that and they haven't been removed. --Noname2 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, many other articles have non free images in this format, you seem to be the only person who has a problem with it. The images are necessary because they illustrate the station's history in a way words cannot and help add to the reader's understanding. Also, ignoring and removing comments from other people who disagree with you isn't going to help. If you don't get consensus on this, I'm going to revert your edit again. --Noname2 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that WJBK is the only article to have non-gallery logos removed from it, it's that your the only person doing it. Many other people have been removing logo galleries from articles. When those logos are re-inserted in a non-gallery format, they do nothing. --Noname2 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

...but you have no idea what I went through almost three years ago. The admin of this website's forum banned me for posting inappropriate material that I didn't even make. Since then, I've been doing some mean things to her and her staff, and a friend of mine betrayed me half a year later. She later showed no mercy by blocking the I.P. Addresses I used to link to that site.
And I know that you're probably going to say that you don't care and that most of the problems were caused by me. I get that a lot, these days. Again, I'm sorry. I should've come to you first. ^_^'
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 19:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Mills- continuing the conversation.

I have an English keyboard and an can get back on line- though time is limited. We spoke in August re List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited, when your interpretation of Fair Use and mine were at at odds. Before we agree a better solution, there are few interesting side issues to investigate. Would you like to look at my talk page User talk:ClemRutter to see what I mean! I think that at least the bot needs to be recoded. I am also concerned that when the orphaning/and deletions took place that no message was posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mills so other members of the group could have entered the debate- when the bot is being looked at this could be done automatically. ClemRutter (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets deal with the bots- first.

This one is broken- to issue 220 notices for one image is not what was intended.

I don't think the onus should be on you to manually post a notice- the bot should be recoded so that the controlling projects are automatically informed. I welcome your opinion on this.

I have no problems with Fair Use/Fair use criteria and patrolling it does not make one popular. The problem I believe lies in the interpreting the wording which is not consistent with the intention of the policy, and is ambiguous so you and I read the same words and reach differing conclusions- and I readily concede that in most cases this is not an issue- just in this set of circumstances. I haven't time at the moment to research back through my notes to give you the reference and analysis. First lets get the bots working.

ClemRutter (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

I should really check the edit history first! Just a note - working from the DBR list, I found The KLF which not only has 24 non-free files, but is also an FA, and is currently on review. I tagged the article, but was a bit wary about removing the obvious problem images while it's on review. Thoughts? Black Kite 10:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A recently deleted image

Hello. Would you be willing to undelete the above linked image at least for a couple more days so the uploader has a bit longer to respond to my latest inquiry? I think there may be a possibility the image could be pd-old.--Rockfang (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and undeletion. I should have clarified my "pd-old" comment. I meant it could be be pd in the country of origin and I had a brain fart and went straight to thinking to pd-old. My apologies.--Rockfang (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Magic square 4x4 Shams Al-maarif (Arabic magics).jpg)

Hi, Sir.

I tried to rescue my uploaded file from deletion, I will be glad if you have a look at this stub, Shams_Al-ma'arif and judge whether to keep or delete such files. By the way, I can write some more but don't have the professionalism of writing English articles and thus hope someone will improve them someday.--Email4mobile (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned images

Thanks for highlighting the two images:

• Requested speedy deletion for File:Jagannath_Azad.jpg - redundant to File:Jagan Nath Azad..jpg (is it "Jagan Nath" or "Jagannath"?)
• Added File:Ahmed_Ghulamali_Chagla.jpg to Ahmed Ghulamali Chagla (otherwise devoid of images)

Green Giant (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Architecture photos

Which photos can I use for the Architecture of Star Wars article? For example, can I use any from the Coruscant article that show the skyline of that city? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the fair use rule? For some reason I was under the impression that an album cover, for example, can only be used in teh article on the album? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I use this photo File:Coruscantsky.jpg? Does the fair use rationale go in the summary section? What would it be? Needed to illustrate architecture of Star Wars based on no freely image available or likely to become so? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Donald Wolcott photos

The owner of the two photos for the note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keyboardica has sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the following permissions:

• GFDL: GNU Free Documentation License v1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Attribution, ShareAlike, FullText
• CC-BY-SA: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike v1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.

Keyboardica (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit added September 3, 2009

We're still waiting to hear back from permissions-commons@wikipedia.org. Please don't delete the photos. We have permission; it's just amatter of giving it time to get through the system. Thank you. Keyboardica (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DQ logos

The reason the logo information is included is they are part of the company's portfolio of intellectual property. As we all know, companies spend millions of dollars annually to develop brand identity including their trademarks and logos. I fixed the gallery so it only has date information in it and moved the text its own paragraph. I can look for cites, but that will have to be tomorrow as I have work. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Again - they are part of the company's corporate history. We include other facets of various companies' histories in their articles, and this is specific, valid part of those histories. Companies spend multi-millions of dollars annually on creating a brand and logos are part of that process; your repeated insistence that they are not worthy of inclusion ignores that.

Please stop removing them, as well as making threats about removing them, just because you do not think this is a proper. This is not improper use, as the image use is within the WP guidelines for fair use and have all of the proper rationals as required. This is not a fair use dispute as you claim but a content dispute initiated by you.

The text is a description of the logos, and does not need to be cited because it is simply a summary of the image. The dates can be provided through the US trademark office and I will get that when I am off on Friday or Saturday. I have found other information that can also be added, and will be doing so at that time. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DC Logos?

Why did you delete the Disney Channel logos? They are important because it shows how much the channel has changed and how many logos were used since the channel started. I suggest you put them back up. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the TV Networks on Wikipedia have they're past logo's as well, what's the difference there? - Alec2011 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way are you talking about? - Alec2011 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's 2: [[1]] [[2]]. Also what's so bad about having the Past Logos on the Page? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you deleteing them? They are important to see how much the network has changed. ALso the Old "TLC" logo looks nothing like the newer one. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes the logo looks like it, but that's the reason of rebranding, keeping the same name and changeing it to a more modern feel. They are significant, because it shows how much the channel has changed. Plus your should really oen a discussion before yuo delete them, it's what Wikipedia Suggests. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've done all I can, thanks for the help. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When Deleting Logos

Remember when deleting logos, anything before 1978 (I do believe it is) is considered free use and in some cases public domain. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Snippy aren't we? Well, Mr. Wisdom, what year is it? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on an awful lot of things. Anything published in the US before 1923 is considered public domain, that's a date worth remembering. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I said "in some cases", not "always". Might want to read what I write, before snapping off a reply. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I read "anything before 1978 (I do believe it is) is considered free use". That is very wrong. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote something User:Dhett said in one of our many copyright conversations here at Wikipedia.

"I've been doing a little research on copyright laws, and gleaned some interesting information. As expected, copyright laws are not simple. If they were, why would we need attorneys?

Prior to January 1, 1978, copyrights were in effect for a 28-year period. During the final year of the copyright, it could be renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to do so. Depending on renewal, copyrights expired after 28 or 56 years, and could not be renewed for a third period. In 1976, Congress passed copyright reform, effective in 1978, in which, for our purposes, i.e., works created for hire, the copyright is in effect for 100 years from the date the work was created, or 75 years from the date that the work was published, whichever occurs sooner. There is only one copyright period, and the copyright cannot be renewed.

Congress also passed a series of laws that in effect, extended those new copyright protections back to 1964 by means of an automatic renewal, but only if the work had a copyright notice. Per the non-free content guideline, for works created before 1978, if there is no copyright notice, there is no copyright, and the work is in the public domain.

Here's what it means to us: nearly all logos created 56 years ago or earlier are now in the public domain. Therefore, use of any such logo in Wikipedia no longer falls under the non-free standard, and should not be deleted, as it is not a non-free image. The exception are those logos still in use, such as the CBS Eye, which almost certainly are still protected under trademark laws. What's more, any logo created before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain.

Any logo from 1951 or before can have its licensing changed from copyrighted to public domain, and the fair use rationales can be deleted. Any logo from 1977 and earlier can also be changed to public domain, provided it is not still in use, and provided it does not have a copyright notice."

That can be found in this thread. That is where I get the 1978 date from. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

After skim reading that, at least one point is incorrect. However, we do have a tag for the issue you are discussing- this one. However, if you read the text of the template, there's a massive, massive difference between that legal loophole, and the idea that "anything before 1978 is considered free use and in some cases public domain." J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I love how you get stuck on one thing. It is quite interesting. Just don't delete any image that has been around since before 1978 and we will be fine, OK. Can ya do that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what? I'll not remove any image that's tagged as PD, if that's what you mean. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to the large thread I posted above says "Any logo from 1977 and earlier can also be changed to public domain, provided it is not still in use, and provided it does not have a copyright notice" which means anything before 1978 shouldn't be touched in your "DELETE EVERYTHING" extravaganza you have going on. Can you do that or do we need to have another conversation about copyright laws? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If content is tagged as public domain, I will not remove it. If content is tagged as non-free and is used in a way that is not consistent with our non-free content criteria, I will remove it. I am not going to contact a lawyer about every image on the off chance that it is actually in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that you won't take the couple seconds of extra time to research the image to make sure it isn't public domain, you will just delete it? Is that what you are saying? Time to hand in your adminship, you obviously don't have the patience or knowledge to do this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've told you before I'm not interested in your opinions on whether I should be an administrator. Please, if you want to discuss these issues with me, leave that issue alone. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to discuss the issues with you, but when you attitude and ego get in the way, it becomes kinda hard to talk to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you explain that point? I really do not consider myself to be egotastical. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You have explain things in a way (and have even said it before) that makes it sound like you are right and the other person is wrong. See about with the one word response. That is hightly egotistical. You want to work with me, drop the attitude and ego and then we can work together. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly want an explanation for that, I resented the way you arrived with "instructions" which were incorrect/misinformed. What you were saying was wrong, and I felt that was all I needed to say in response. Had you come to me with a question, or even a link and an explanation of why you thought it applied to the logos, I would have been fine. Instead, you came with instructions or a "reminder", which came across as a little patronising. I apologise if I came across as egotistical. I honestly don't mind discussing these things with you (it gets a little tiring sometimes, but so do a lot of things I'm happy to do) and I do feel we often make progress, but I really don't like the constant swiping. I admit I've said some things that have crossed the line myself- for them, I apologise. I think we need to try and think of each other more as colleagues, and less as enemies. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I could have worded my initial statement a little better than a "do this" to a "do you know about this". For that I apologize. We do need to try to work together better. I feel this subject (the images) has put a wedge between alot of people, not just us. This has caused alot of people to become not so polite with other users and even consider than as downright enemies. I think I am going to take a break and get an ice cream from the ice cream truck and come back with fresh eyes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also logos that are in typeface are public domain see WP:Public domain#Fonts for info about that. Powergate92Talk 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I know about that- I apparently interpret that a little more conservatively than some others; I'm a little unsure about where to draw the line. Again, though, I will not remove any logo claimed as PD. I may challenge the claim, but unless it's blatantly non-free, I will not remove it. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

CHCH

Where does it say a non free logo must have a sourced commentary? That seems to be the rule for audio clips, videos, and press photos, but not logos. --Noname2 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Logos are non-free content just like any other. All non-free content must be used in accordance with our non-free content criteria; even our guidelines on logos (which focus almost entirely on the use of "current logos") make this very clear. J Milburn (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those say logos must have a sourced commentary. --Noname2 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not saying that. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

?? Then why are you removing logos for not having a sourced commentary? Anyone who knows CHCH knows that Chch1986.png is a very important logo, whether or not there's another site talking about it. Besides, having it there would make it the only non free image on the page. --Noname2 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that "Anyone who knows CHCH knows" something doesn't matter. I am removing logos because they do not meet our non-free content criteria. Why do you believe that the fact it is the only non-free image on the page is important? Articles don't have some kind of entitlement to one non-free image... Almost all of what you have said here has little or nothing to do with policy. I advise you take a read of our non-free content guidelines and judge the use of the logo against our NFCC, rather than against the fact that "everyone knows" it is needed. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be a difference between the actual policy and what you guys are enforcing, but every TV station article has been allowed one non free logo, the one in the infobox. In CHCH's case, the infobox logo is public domain, so I don't see why there can't be a non free logo elsewhere in the article. Nowhere in the policy does it say non free images can only be in the infobox. --Noname2 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Non-free images may be used elsewhere, but their use has to be justified. The fact that another image already used in the article is free is not at all important when we are discussing whether or not this non-free image can be used- you're really not going to get anywhere with that line of argument. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you keep referencing policy, perhaps its time these 'policies' were changed and updated for the 21st century?! You appear to think that these rules are set in stone, its not cut and dry IMO. Rules can be changed, adapted and new standards put in place. Out of all the logos in that article (aside from the current one) the one that has been removed is the one that should be there. The other can be removed for all I care, they are not pertinent but the deleted one is.The GateKeeper07 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Until the policies are changed, unless you have a damn good reason, we will stick to them. It needs to be demonstrated why this image is necessary- you can shout about how you don't like policies until you're blue in the face, this mindless rhetoric isn't going to get you anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: CHCH-TV

I noticed you have removed an image from this article without giving a valid explanation?! Can you explain to me why the other images in the article are allowed to remain while this one for some reason has to be removed?! I don't understand what this 'sourced discussion' refers to can you be more specific as I am old school and back in my day people explained their comments. This image is valid IMO as it contributes to the article by giving a visual reference to the station's history. CHCH has been on the air for over 50 years and this logo was official identification for the station for over 15 of those 50 plus years. Why not remove the other image that is there and keep this one as I did- please explain?!The GateKeeper07 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The other logos in the article are in typeface so they are public domain see WP:Public domain#Fonts for info about that. Powergate92Talk 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this "sourced commentary" thing either. As far as I'm aware, NFCC states that NFC must be minimally used (there were only two pieces of NFC on CHCH-TV article) and it must add significance to the article. NFCC#8 can be debated on whether you view the images as decoration or historical artifacts.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the images were genuinely significant, they would be discussed. How can you argue that these historical logos are so vitally important to the article when you don't even discuss them in the prose? Who are we to declare them important if reliable sources don't care? J Milburn (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think I understand what you are talking about now. However, I don't know where you are going to find a discussion about a logo from 30 years ago?! What if someone were to right up something in the article about this image and its significance- would that suffice as discussion or are we talking about something from an outside source?! In all honesty we are talking about a TV station here, not overly significant in the grand scheme of things, not like a political figure or historical event- so I doubt that sourced discussion about this actually exists?! In light of this, I feel that this 'sourced discussion' issue is not a valid enough reason to warrant the removal of the image in question. Wikipedia is an 'Encyclopedia' and usually the information contained in such books (or websites) is of a historical nature, stuff that has already occurred so as this image pertains to the history of the subject matter of the article (CHCH), a way should be found to allow this image to remain. At least that is how I see things.The GateKeeper07 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources- they are based on what has already been published. If no one else has felt the need to discuss these logos (as you say, they perhaps are not that important) there's no pressing need for us to use them- especially when we have such strong guidelines against the use of non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If we don't need sources for TV show plot summary (See this discussion) then why do we need sources for discussion of old TV station logos? Powergate92Talk 21:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Because no one is contesting that plot summaries are unimportant? J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyrus-green

I've indefblocked him as he uploaded over a dozen replaceable fair use images this morning. Indefinite is definitely not intended as infinite here; if he undertakes to abide by image policies I have no objection to you or anyone else unblocking him. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Sharks sawfish image

Hey, nice work you've been doing on the sharks portal. I wanted to note that this image is of a sawfish, which is not a shark. -- Yzx (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the criteria for selected images. There are images of fairly high resolution on pages like horn shark, Caribbean reef shark, lemon shark, and grey reef shark, but high enough? I have no idea. Also, if you want to keep track of new shark GA noms and listings there's an article alert list on the Project page. -- Yzx (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:D'Andrea, Anthony.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:D'Andrea, Anthony.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the public domain, being from 1921 or earlier. Appears to have been used by the Chicago Daily Tribune 1921 or earlier, possibly other old Chicago papers as well. RickW7x2 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this is my first submission of a photo I am unsure what the proper steps are. When I made the upload I did not see a tag for public domain photos. RickW7x2 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Danny Lee Wynter

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Danny Lee Wynter.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing by user Alexikoua and the edit in question where they appear to call you a sockpuppet. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:NorthWitham-19mar44.jpg

Crown Copyright expired 50 years after photograph taken in 1994. Annotations on photo from Freeman, Roger A., Airfields Of The Eighth, Then And Now, 1978 Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two years ago when I uploaded it in the first place Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC) That is what the statement was.

Not a problem take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

About this off-wiki [[3]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[4]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exact the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[5]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. I really regret, since situation is a bit out of control, but reasonably thinking, why should I add such kind of information off wiki? Sorry for the capitals and really sorry for involving you (by accident) but I really feel sad when being involved in that kind of activity which does not represent me and what I beliefs.

I will post my comments in admins noticeboard, and add specific information about I_Pakashems record in wiki which is full of violating wp:npa, wp:incivility, with his contribution being just a number of reverts. Sorry for the caps, I'm really sorry that you have been involved on such an issue.

My contribution history proves that I'm not involved on the kind of activity which makes me sickAlexikoua (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this kind of disturbance will soon be fully checked. It is sure that someone intents to escalate this situation.Alexikoua (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This off-wiki attempt is getting sicker than ever. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix-skouliki). Who could sign with such a name? So Pakapshem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic of a Nazist? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active off-wiki too, but I hope not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Sharks

You're very lucky because I will be in a camp approximately 4 hours from now (at the time of this posting) and won't come back out until Sunday afternoon. Since there're so few FAs, I would say put all FA and GA under selected articles. Just some additional comments, remove the Outline of sharks because that is still a proposed policy/guideline and could potentially become a lightning rod for edit war. Also, expand the introduction paragraph. At any time, for next few days, if you don't hear any replies from me, then you know where I am =) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the best known image of sharks these days: The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living by Damien Hirst...Modernist (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, back in action. In my opinion, selected distribution doesn't really give much info other than itself, does it? Since there're so little FP hanging around, feel free to fill up the rest with good quality images (aka use your commons sense when choosing) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The normal rule-of-thumb is a minimum of 20 selections per section. Because sharks is a huge topic, you should aim for more than just 20. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Err, no. You don't need THAT many DYK, lol. 7 sets should suffice. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarichus

Hi J Milburn. Before any action from my part I would like to ask your opinion about it. As an older user and administrator you must have seen more such cases. From the old pro-Albanian block known for many past issues, the only missing person in the discussions is Sarandioti. Something that is unexplained according to the previous tag-teaming, battle-ground activity of that user. Although his account is still active he didn't even took part in the voting and to my "personal" experience this is unexplained since he was in every issue together with the rest users presently in the voting. Also his English and the somewhat ideological similarities of their user pages (note the baby Hitler) makes me to suspect sockpuppeting. But I will appreciate your opinion about. Thanks. --Factuarius (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read both. The difference between them is the chaotic space between a individualist philosopher and an observant, but narrow minded nationalist, seriously distracted from the butchering battlegrounds of the western front. But the difference isn't so easily recognizable from his followers. Anyway I agree that the pages are not an argument, but I still found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user even under your helpful guidance. To me there is a possibility to be just a try of Sarandioti to become something more than a user in WP as to push more efficiently his well known nationalistic agenda on behalf his block. I have "meet" him in many articles and the way of acting and speaking is very familiar to me, but maybe I am wrong. Since you feel that he is indeed a new user I will not file a checkuser request. I will observe his future activity for any new evidences and will see. Thanks for your time, --Factuarius (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Power & VPC

Yeah, was trying that out as in it's present form I don't see much future for VP/VPC - it may kick on, but in general I've been disappointed with a lot of what gets promoted and it seems to be getting less popular rather than more (e.g., I think there were 50 VPs in under 3 months at the start, it now must have been around for about 9 months and don't think it's yet hit 100). Getting voters remains a perennial problem. I thought putting up those type of images would perhaps help to breath some life into VPC and give it more of a point.

I disagree with your point that "every non-free image we use should be valuable" - I mean yes it should be valuable as you suggest, but that doesn't mean it's valued in VP terms. For example there are many non-free images of things like TV show logos. These are valuable to their articles, but I wouldn't consider them valuable per se. I'd say the same for your example of album covers - some 'classic' ones may be particularly valued, e.g., The Dark Side of the Moon or Abbey Road (album), but most are just good for their generally limited article.

I thought that we may be able to draw attention to the real standouts via VP, and consequently perhaps draw attention back to VP, by labelling those outstanding EV non-free images we have, things like the black power salute and Tank Man. How would we decide which ones were valuable enough to be VPs? Well that would be what the VP nomination would hopefully be sorting out...

Anyway, seems like that idea was not taken well by others.

Good luck in your other discussion. I fear this is one of those unproductive situations you get now and then when an apparently well meaning editor just doesn't get it. Given that the PPR comments and other feedback provided fell on deaf ears, I actually thought we should leave the FP noms open for a while to be snowballed with opposes so that perhaps he might actually get the message that way. (BTW, you didn't move them to recently closed, but I'll do that now). --jjron (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed, it was just basically my last ditch attempt at getting something going at VPC. The FPC recently closed section came in about 3 or 4 months ago, so yeah, funny you haven't noticed it. You've just done the easy close (non-promote), the real test is doing a full promotion properly ;-). Where have you hit him before? It can be frustrating dealing with such an editor, especially when they seem to mean well, however sometimes those noms are good at FPC as they give everyone a no-brainer to vote on which can take a bit of the pressure off... --jjron (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is it just me, but if you got banned off various things, wouldn't you use different usernames when to you went and joined other ones? Not sure they're always playing with a full deck though. Yeah, have also hit similar ones before on Wiki, the odd one seems to hit upon PPR. As I said to Childzy earlier today, it gets to the point where I just ignore their posts and hope they'll go away, and they usually do. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure they're always kids, but I guess it is the case sometimes, though kids can be more tuned in than that. That is a problem when the misguided attempts to help in fact mislead other users, especially newbies. The time wasting is just annoying, at least initially. I wonder about some of these admins too at times. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the IRC "explanation" says to use the command !helper before the question that you want to ask. And how about bad words? Why not ban users using bad words on the IRC. And I was not trying to misguide newbies. All of my advices are one that I used so I must have been wrong. Plus, the only things that I gave advice with is the <ref></ref> tags. I just said to use the <ref>{{citeweb}}</ref>. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Greg Hall

Hi, I just noticed this got deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geeklizzard&redirect=no#File_permission_problem_with_File:Greg-winking.jpg But I did send in the letter as requested giving formal permission for the photo to be used. Should I upload it again ? Thanks. --Lizzard (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarichus

Hi J Milburn. Before any action from my part I would like to ask your opinion about it. As an older user and administrator you must have seen more such cases. From the old pro-Albanian block known for many past issues, the only missing person in the discussions is Sarandioti. Something that is unexplained according to the previous tag-teaming, battle-ground activity of that user. Although his account is still active he didn't even took part in the voting and to my "personal" experience this is unexplained since he was in every issue together with the rest users presently in the voting. Also his English and the somewhat ideological similarities of their user pages (note the baby Hitler) makes me to suspect sockpuppeting. But I will appreciate your opinion about. Thanks. --Factuarius (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read both. The difference between them is the chaotic space between a individualist philosopher and an observant, but narrow minded nationalist, seriously distracted from the butchering battlegrounds of the western front. But the difference isn't so easily recognizable from his followers. Anyway I agree that the pages are not an argument, but I still found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user even under your helpful guidance. To me there is a possibility to be just a try of Sarandioti to become something more than a user in WP as to push more efficiently his well known nationalistic agenda on behalf his block. I have "meet" him in many articles and the way of acting and speaking is very familiar to me, but maybe I am wrong. Since you feel that he is indeed a new user I will not file a checkuser request. I will observe his future activity for any new evidences and will see. Thanks for your time, --Factuarius (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Power & VPC

Yeah, was trying that out as in it's present form I don't see much future for VP/VPC - it may kick on, but in general I've been disappointed with a lot of what gets promoted and it seems to be getting less popular rather than more (e.g., I think there were 50 VPs in under 3 months at the start, it now must have been around for about 9 months and don't think it's yet hit 100). Getting voters remains a perennial problem. I thought putting up those type of images would perhaps help to breath some life into VPC and give it more of a point.

I disagree with your point that "every non-free image we use should be valuable" - I mean yes it should be valuable as you suggest, but that doesn't mean it's valued in VP terms. For example there are many non-free images of things like TV show logos. These are valuable to their articles, but I wouldn't consider them valuable per se. I'd say the same for your example of album covers - some 'classic' ones may be particularly valued, e.g., The Dark Side of the Moon or Abbey Road (album), but most are just good for their generally limited article.

I thought that we may be able to draw attention to the real standouts via VP, and consequently perhaps draw attention back to VP, by labelling those outstanding EV non-free images we have, things like the black power salute and Tank Man. How would we decide which ones were valuable enough to be VPs? Well that would be what the VP nomination would hopefully be sorting out...

Anyway, seems like that idea was not taken well by others.

Good luck in your other discussion. I fear this is one of those unproductive situations you get now and then when an apparently well meaning editor just doesn't get it. Given that the PPR comments and other feedback provided fell on deaf ears, I actually thought we should leave the FP noms open for a while to be snowballed with opposes so that perhaps he might actually get the message that way. (BTW, you didn't move them to recently closed, but I'll do that now). --jjron (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed, it was just basically my last ditch attempt at getting something going at VPC. The FPC recently closed section came in about 3 or 4 months ago, so yeah, funny you haven't noticed it. You've just done the easy close (non-promote), the real test is doing a full promotion properly ;-). Where have you hit him before? It can be frustrating dealing with such an editor, especially when they seem to mean well, however sometimes those noms are good at FPC as they give everyone a no-brainer to vote on which can take a bit of the pressure off... --jjron (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is it just me, but if you got banned off various things, wouldn't you use different usernames when to you went and joined other ones? Not sure they're always playing with a full deck though. Yeah, have also hit similar ones before on Wiki, the odd one seems to hit upon PPR. As I said to Childzy earlier today, it gets to the point where I just ignore their posts and hope they'll go away, and they usually do. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure they're always kids, but I guess it is the case sometimes, though kids can be more tuned in than that. That is a problem when the misguided attempts to help in fact mislead other users, especially newbies. The time wasting is just annoying, at least initially. I wonder about some of these admins too at times. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the IRC "explanation" says to use the command !helper before the question that you want to ask. And how about bad words? Why not ban users using bad words on the IRC. And I was not trying to misguide newbies. All of my advices are one that I used so I must have been wrong. Plus, the only things that I gave advice with is the <ref></ref> tags. I just said to use the <ref>{{citeweb}}</ref>. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Greg Hall

Hi, I just noticed this got deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geeklizzard&redirect=no#File_permission_problem_with_File:Greg-winking.jpg But I did send in the letter as requested giving formal permission for the photo to be used. Should I upload it again ? Thanks. --Lizzard (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarichus

Hi J Milburn. Before any action from my part I would like to ask your opinion about it. As an older user and administrator you must have seen more such cases. From the old pro-Albanian block known for many past issues, the only missing person in the discussions is Sarandioti. Something that is unexplained according to the previous tag-teaming, battle-ground activity of that user. Although his account is still active he didn't even took part in the voting and to my "personal" experience this is unexplained since he was in every issue together with the rest users presently in the voting. Also his English and the somewhat ideological similarities of their user pages (note the baby Hitler) makes me to suspect sockpuppeting. But I will appreciate your opinion about. Thanks. --Factuarius (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read both. The difference between them is the chaotic space between a individualist philosopher and an observant, but narrow minded nationalist, seriously distracted from the butchering battlegrounds of the western front. But the difference isn't so easily recognizable from his followers. Anyway I agree that the pages are not an argument, but I still found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user even under your helpful guidance. To me there is a possibility to be just a try of Sarandioti to become something more than a user in WP as to push more efficiently his well known nationalistic agenda on behalf his block. I have "meet" him in many articles and the way of acting and speaking is very familiar to me, but maybe I am wrong. Since you feel that he is indeed a new user I will not file a checkuser request. I will observe his future activity for any new evidences and will see. Thanks for your time, --Factuarius (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Power & VPC

Yeah, was trying that out as in it's present form I don't see much future for VP/VPC - it may kick on, but in general I've been disappointed with a lot of what gets promoted and it seems to be getting less popular rather than more (e.g., I think there were 50 VPs in under 3 months at the start, it now must have been around for about 9 months and don't think it's yet hit 100). Getting voters remains a perennial problem. I thought putting up those type of images would perhaps help to breath some life into VPC and give it more of a point.

I disagree with your point that "every non-free image we use should be valuable" - I mean yes it should be valuable as you suggest, but that doesn't mean it's valued in VP terms. For example there are many non-free images of things like TV show logos. These are valuable to their articles, but I wouldn't consider them valuable per se. I'd say the same for your example of album covers - some 'classic' ones may be particularly valued, e.g., The Dark Side of the Moon or Abbey Road (album), but most are just good for their generally limited article.

I thought that we may be able to draw attention to the real standouts via VP, and consequently perhaps draw attention back to VP, by labelling those outstanding EV non-free images we have, things like the black power salute and Tank Man. How would we decide which ones were valuable enough to be VPs? Well that would be what the VP nomination would hopefully be sorting out...

Anyway, seems like that idea was not taken well by others.

Good luck in your other discussion. I fear this is one of those unproductive situations you get now and then when an apparently well meaning editor just doesn't get it. Given that the PPR comments and other feedback provided fell on deaf ears, I actually thought we should leave the FP noms open for a while to be snowballed with opposes so that perhaps he might actually get the message that way. (BTW, you didn't move them to recently closed, but I'll do that now). --jjron (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed, it was just basically my last ditch attempt at getting something going at VPC. The FPC recently closed section came in about 3 or 4 months ago, so yeah, funny you haven't noticed it. You've just done the easy close (non-promote), the real test is doing a full promotion properly ;-). Where have you hit him before? It can be frustrating dealing with such an editor, especially when they seem to mean well, however sometimes those noms are good at FPC as they give everyone a no-brainer to vote on which can take a bit of the pressure off... --jjron (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is it just me, but if you got banned off various things, wouldn't you use different usernames when to you went and joined other ones? Not sure they're always playing with a full deck though. Yeah, have also hit similar ones before on Wiki, the odd one seems to hit upon PPR. As I said to Childzy earlier today, it gets to the point where I just ignore their posts and hope they'll go away, and they usually do. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure they're always kids, but I guess it is the case sometimes, though kids can be more tuned in than that. That is a problem when the misguided attempts to help in fact mislead other users, especially newbies. The time wasting is just annoying, at least initially. I wonder about some of these admins too at times. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the IRC "explanation" says to use the command !helper before the question that you want to ask. And how about bad words? Why not ban users using bad words on the IRC. And I was not trying to misguide newbies. All of my advices are one that I used so I must have been wrong. Plus, the only things that I gave advice with is the <ref></ref> tags. I just said to use the <ref>{{citeweb}}</ref>. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Greg Hall

Hi, I just noticed this got deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geeklizzard&redirect=no#File_permission_problem_with_File:Greg-winking.jpg But I did send in the letter as requested giving formal permission for the photo to be used. Should I upload it again ? Thanks. --Lizzard (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarichus

Hi J Milburn. Before any action from my part I would like to ask your opinion about it. As an older user and administrator you must have seen more such cases. From the old pro-Albanian block known for many past issues, the only missing person in the discussions is Sarandioti. Something that is unexplained according to the previous tag-teaming, battle-ground activity of that user. Although his account is still active he didn't even took part in the voting and to my "personal" experience this is unexplained since he was in every issue together with the rest users presently in the voting. Also his English and the somewhat ideological similarities of their user pages (note the baby Hitler) makes me to suspect sockpuppeting. But I will appreciate your opinion about. Thanks. --Factuarius (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read both. The difference between them is the chaotic space between a individualist philosopher and an observant, but narrow minded nationalist, seriously distracted from the butchering battlegrounds of the western front. But the difference isn't so easily recognizable from his followers. Anyway I agree that the pages are not an argument, but I still found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user even under your helpful guidance. To me there is a possibility to be just a try of Sarandioti to become something more than a user in WP as to push more efficiently his well known nationalistic agenda on behalf his block. I have "meet" him in many articles and the way of acting and speaking is very familiar to me, but maybe I am wrong. Since you feel that he is indeed a new user I will not file a checkuser request. I will observe his future activity for any new evidences and will see. Thanks for your time, --Factuarius (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Power & VPC

Yeah, was trying that out as in it's present form I don't see much future for VP/VPC - it may kick on, but in general I've been disappointed with a lot of what gets promoted and it seems to be getting less popular rather than more (e.g., I think there were 50 VPs in under 3 months at the start, it now must have been around for about 9 months and don't think it's yet hit 100). Getting voters remains a perennial problem. I thought putting up those type of images would perhaps help to breath some life into VPC and give it more of a point.

I disagree with your point that "every non-free image we use should be valuable" - I mean yes it should be valuable as you suggest, but that doesn't mean it's valued in VP terms. For example there are many non-free images of things like TV show logos. These are valuable to their articles, but I wouldn't consider them valuable per se. I'd say the same for your example of album covers - some 'classic' ones may be particularly valued, e.g., The Dark Side of the Moon or Abbey Road (album), but most are just good for their generally limited article.

I thought that we may be able to draw attention to the real standouts via VP, and consequently perhaps draw attention back to VP, by labelling those outstanding EV non-free images we have, things like the black power salute and Tank Man. How would we decide which ones were valuable enough to be VPs? Well that would be what the VP nomination would hopefully be sorting out...

Anyway, seems like that idea was not taken well by others.

Good luck in your other discussion. I fear this is one of those unproductive situations you get now and then when an apparently well meaning editor just doesn't get it. Given that the PPR comments and other feedback provided fell on deaf ears, I actually thought we should leave the FP noms open for a while to be snowballed with opposes so that perhaps he might actually get the message that way. (BTW, you didn't move them to recently closed, but I'll do that now). --jjron (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed, it was just basically my last ditch attempt at getting something going at VPC. The FPC recently closed section came in about 3 or 4 months ago, so yeah, funny you haven't noticed it. You've just done the easy close (non-promote), the real test is doing a full promotion properly ;-). Where have you hit him before? It can be frustrating dealing with such an editor, especially when they seem to mean well, however sometimes those noms are good at FPC as they give everyone a no-brainer to vote on which can take a bit of the pressure off... --jjron (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is it just me, but if you got banned off various things, wouldn't you use different usernames when to you went and joined other ones? Not sure they're always playing with a full deck though. Yeah, have also hit similar ones before on Wiki, the odd one seems to hit upon PPR. As I said to Childzy earlier today, it gets to the point where I just ignore their posts and hope they'll go away, and they usually do. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure they're always kids, but I guess it is the case sometimes, though kids can be more tuned in than that. That is a problem when the misguided attempts to help in fact mislead other users, especially newbies. The time wasting is just annoying, at least initially. I wonder about some of these admins too at times. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the IRC "explanation" says to use the command !helper before the question that you want to ask. And how about bad words? Why not ban users using bad words on the IRC. And I was not trying to misguide newbies. All of my advices are one that I used so I must have been wrong. Plus, the only things that I gave advice with is the <ref></ref> tags. I just said to use the <ref>{{citeweb}}</ref>. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Greg Hall

Hi, I just noticed this got deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geeklizzard&redirect=no#File_permission_problem_with_File:Greg-winking.jpg But I did send in the letter as requested giving formal permission for the photo to be used. Should I upload it again ? Thanks. --Lizzard (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Milburn can you ping me when you are online? This is regarding User:ElPilotoDi. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I already pinged User:Stifle reagarding ElPilotoDi's edits. I feel the user is still failing to see any reason and avoiding the rules and regulations of wP:NFCC. Here's what me and Stifle corresponded.

"Stifle could you please take a look at the above image uploaded by ElPilotoDi again? After repeated warnings and blocks (by you) the user I see is failing to reason with his faulty uploads. Even using sockpuppetry too during his block. Just take a look at the contributions of the following IPs: 1, 2 and 3. The last two IP vandalism was done to another article "Holiday", since I removed the non-free NFCC#3a failing image, and replaced with a free image in the article "Like a Virgin (song)". --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the first-mentioned image as orphaned fair use.

None of the edits you mentioned were performed during his block, so there is no sockpuppetry violation there. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But it is clear that those IP and this one is the same user. So that is indeed a case of sockpuppetry there." --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

University of Miami

I see that you have protected University of Miami for a week. Would you be available to assit Ryulong and I in working through the issue during that time period? I think that if each of us wrote out a list of our constraints/concerns and gave the lists to a third person, the third person could come up with a solution. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

dispute with VMAsNYC

I thought you might want to know that I mentioned your dispute with User:VMAsNYC here where he has reported my for a bogus WP:3RR violation. ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Rambutans

Hey, I have answered your question here. Anything else? --Muhammad(talk) 23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alaric

I see User:Alarichus admited [[6]] that he has access on other logged user's i.p.. Actually, I dont see how he officially per wiki policy gained this kind of access peeking on i.p.s, but seems we have a clear wp:privacy policy issue, per wp:Personal security practices.Alexikoua (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that I did not violate any part of the guidelines. Factuarius actually revealed his ip accidentally,[7]. --Alarichus (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you were a polite-desent user you had asked for sockpuppet investigation, making fruitless assumptions, referring to registered user's i.p.s leads to nowhere.Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a sockpuppetry investigation, and we simply cannot be 100% sure that he is sockpuppeting. There is a large possibility, but because of the many statics and the few isps, we can only refer to it as a "possible sockpuppetry case", which is the exact term I have used. --Alarichus (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a sockpuppetry investigation??? Sorry I see nothing, have you ever made a sock. inv. request? Your history contribution does not agree as well.Alexikoua (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the #wikipedia-en-spi. --Alarichus (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Did it, I',m sorry wp:spi has a tottaly diferrent conclusion on that, seems obvious you made up all this.

There is a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti case on the way, against Alarichus, with a series of evidence.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LANCS

Hi J Milburn/archive26, I have proposed at the talk page of the new WP:LANCS (WikiProject Lancashire) that there be a combined WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria (rationale provided at talk page). As a Wikipedian interested in Cumbria-related content, I would be grateful to learn of your opinion on this matter there. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

wots that mean, i dont tink tat j milburn is gunna undastand, u shuld probbly mke it esier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Plop (talk • contribs) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

u editd my page and sad mi edet was exprmnet. it wsnt, y did u change it bck? it ws gud edit. anyway, u can chang it bck agan if yu wantn

im mister plop

Lew Irwin

What is the problem with the Lew Irwin image you removed? Is that image too big? If so, could you restore the smaller version posted earlier? DougHill (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but what about the size of the image (Credgapppback.jpg), still used on other pages? Another user posted a larger version. If this is a problem (for fair usage), could you restore the smaller version? DougHill (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Jackson and Simon Mitchell images

Hi J Milburn, we have adsded these images and they are now up for deletion due to lack of copyright information. Trouble is , Im a dottering old fool who can barely use a computer much less understand the process of adding these citations. Could you help me with this. The photos belong to Simon Mitchell and Trevor Jackosn respectively and I know that neither person has an issue with there public use.[[[User:Qldtech|Qldtech]] (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)]

Okay thanks. I have arranged for that email to be sent and have tagged the photos as suggested[[[User:Qldtech|Qldtech]] (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)]

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Lemon shark

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:Lemonshark(2).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your uploads

User_talk:Jasenm222 I have deleted a large number of the images you have uploaded, and tagged many others. I'm afraid we cannot simply assume that copyright holders are willing to release their images under the GFDL- instead, we have to wait until they give express permission. I can see no reason to believe that the screenshots and other images you have uploaded have been freely released. In future, please do not just assume that content is freely licensed. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

All of thos images are free if you look at the bottom of this page you will see the tag for "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." that is why i taged {{GFDL}}. I am doing this for the Flyff forum GMs. What do i do reference where they came from? Jasenm222 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Jasenm222 i had forgot to add the link it is to the official wiki this i edited it after you looked i guess Jasenm222 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can the wiki license not be important when the images come from there. http://flyff-wiki.gpotato.com/index.php/Image:Arena_of_Ole.jpg http://flyff-wiki.gpotato.com/index.php/Image:Acrobat.jpg Jasenm222 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC) ps I change all of my images they all have the tag now vgrationale

No disrespect intended, but in this matter, you sir are much more a hindrance then an aide. You could have pointed out ways to help instead you just delete. All of the imagery is free under GFDL. Gala-Net Encourages the creation of Fan-sites by providing imagery for download. If anyone may use them for their site I don't see why the Wikipedia would not have the right. Jasenm222 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

K. V. Mathew

I rather struggle with images. You see Prof. K. V. Mathew himself gave the picture to me. Please guide me how to re-upload the picture using suitable tags. Thank you.--Pradeep (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)

Moved to Talk:Dustbin Baby (film)#Phrasing of content addressing Asperger syndrome

Glen Campbell videos

Hi J Milburn,

I have a few questions/remarks regarding your removal of the front cover pictures on Glen Campbell videos:

1. On which wikipedia guideline is your statement ("We do not use non-free images in lists like this.") based?
2. The editor who put this page under your attention also stated "We allow [a non-free image] when it identifies the whole subject of the article, but we don't use them for individual entries in lists". However, this article has more than one subject, namely all original videos released by Glen Campbell. The entries in this article used to be separate articles but have been merged into one article recently. I don't think the sole fact that the articles have been merged into one means that showing the front cover of those releases is not allowed anymore. I agree that adding (free or non-free) images should not be done to decorate every item in a list (like for instance in a general discography article like this (Glen Campbell discography) but this is not a list, this is a merged article with content on every separate release. Removing the front covers in my view clearly makes for a lesser article since there is no image to clearly identify the described DVDs or videos.
3. You say "If the DVDs are not even worthy of their own articles...". Are you saying that there is a link between the notability of a certain subject and the use of non-free images? If so, on which guideline or policy is this based?
4. I had temporarily restored the links to the images, not to be stubborn or to irritate you but to avoid the images being automatically removed while the discussion is ongoing. I see you removed them again. I will not restore them for the moment. I guess I have a little time before they are actually removed right? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lumdeloo; have a look at WP:NFLISTS. I can assure you this sort of use has been debated many, many times. Each time, the result is the images are removed. If you want to have these images on the project, you're going to need to have an appropriate article specific to each video. If each video is not notable enough to have its own article, there's not much argument that can be made that we have to host non-free content on this article, when the videos aren't very notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn/Hammersoft, in reply to your answers:

• The non-free content criteria (criteria 3 and 8 specifically) and the non-free content guidelines. There were also extensive discussions about the use of album covers in discographies- this is basically the same issue. The cover is not worthy of discussion, and the releases are not even worthy of their own articles. How you feel you can justify the use of the images is beyond me.

Criterium 3 states that multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. I cannot use one front cover to identify all the described videos/DVDs, so this is not applicable here.

Criterium 8 states that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. As I said, removing the front covers in my view clearly makes for a lesser article since there is no image to clearly identify the described DVDs or videos. As some of these videos have been released many times with interchanging titles i even think it's necessary to add an image of the original release.

The non-free content guidelines are basically the same. There is however the section "Non-free image use in list articles", thanks for pointing that out. I feel that there is a good reason (see above) to include the front covers. It's not that this guideline forbids the use of non-free images under any circumstances.

I must confess I didn't know there have been extensive discussions about this subject but discussions are not guidelines right? I think I know what a general discography page looks like and I can see why you should not use images in there. My point is that this page is not a mere listing of related objects or persons but it provides considerable descriptions of the videos/DVDs. Use of front covers to identify those videos/DVDs falls under acceptable use of non-free images per the non-free content guideline.

• We use non-free images when they meet the NFCC. We don't have "a single image" in every article or anything like that. The article has a single subject- "videos by Glen Campbell". Does an article on a band have multiple subjects because there are multiple members?

No but that's not a fair comparison. In the case of a band you could use a picture of the band as a whole. That's not an option in my case.

• Yes, there is. It is generally accepted that, for instance, album covers are welcome in headers of articles about the album, logos in articles about companies, and so on. As such, these single "identifying" images can be used in their own articles, but should not be splayed around elsewhere. Think about it- if we can't even justify giving the subject an article, why, when what the cover looks like is of no particular importance, is it so important that a free content encyclopedia bends its rules to show the image, or, even worse, several images?

As you know "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". You may feel that what the cover looks like is of no importance, i feel otherwise. But that's not the most important thing. We should discuss this based on guidelines and as far as I know, there is no guideline which links notability to the question to use or not ot use non-free images as content.

• I think non-free images are deleted five days after they are tagged as orphans. If they are deleted, they can easily be restored by any administrator if they are required at a later date. Restoring a non-free image to an article so that it is not deleted really does miss the point. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This of course depends on one's point of view about whether the use of those non-free images is acceptable or not.

I really feel the quality of the information provided would deteriorate if we left out the front covers and I'm not hanging on to useless decorations. I know you do not agree. Could you perhaps point me to some discography/videography articles which you feel are comparable to this one, where the images have been removed based on the relevant non-free content guidelines? Thanks. 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lumdelo, you will not be successful if you attempt to include the images. Category:Discographies and Category:Videographies, in answer to your query. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, this is just what i mean. I agree that you should not use images inside general discography articles which merely list the releases. Those articles do not contain any commentary on those releases, so therefore use of non-free images is not acceptable. However, the Glen Campbell videos page is separate articles merged into one article. I don't see why that sole fact means you cannot use the front cover for identification of the described original releases anymore. I would appreciate a reply on my points. Otherwise I see no clear arguments for the continued removal of the images.

Ok, let's get to the nitty gritty. Why are these covers important? You've already stated that while I "may feel that what the cover looks like is of no importance", you "feel otherwise". So, let's see the evidence. Why are these so important? As has been said, it is generally accepted that a single identifying image of the subject of the article is useful (so, for instance, a video cover in an article about the video) but this does not suddenly give free reign to include covers in list articles. Why are these covers so important? Why should we bend our rules (on accepting only free content) to slip them in? I'm not looking a for a general "images=good" answer here- as has already been demonstrated, that will get you nowhere- I'm looking for a specific reason that these covers are required. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but first let's discuss the definition of "list articles". The current guideline states "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic." I don't agree that the Glen Campbell videos article is on the same level as such a list article. Now if I were to add non-free pictures of every member of the band that supported Glen Campbell during a certain concert that was released on video (which to me is comparable to the characters in a fictional work), then I agree you would have a (big) point. Or if I were to add the front covers of every (re)release of some of these videos, then you would also have a (big) point. What I am doing however is to present the key visual aspect (namely the front cover) of the topic (namely the ORIGINAL video and DVD releases by Glen Campbell). There is just no other way to do this. Your conclusion out of this seems to be "if you can't do it with 1 non-free image, then it's not allowed at all". But that's not what it says in the non-free content policy or guideline. On the subject of this article being different than list articles, even Hammersoft, who is apparantly an expert on this terrain, compares this article to general discography articles which only list (as they should) the releases in table format, not describe the separate releases.

Having said this, i again say that the use of these images meets the non-free content policy and falls under acceptable use of images per the non-free content guideline. So there is no need for me to elaborate on the extraordinary importance of these covers, and there is no need for bending our rules to slip them in.

Nonetheless, I think keeping these images in is important because it improves the quality and readability of the article, in the same way a picture of the (original) front cover does when reading any article or article section about an album/single/book/video or whatever. The added importance of these original front covers for this particular subject is the fact that some of these videos have been rereleased many times, under different and sometimes interchanging titles and front covers. Therefor the original front cover becomes an even more important item to uniquely identify the video or DVD. For what it's worth, the reason the original article did not include a front cover of the first video, is the fact that I have not been able to find a picture of the original front cover yet. I could have opted for a front cover of a rerelease but I do not want to use pictures (free or non-free for that matter) indiscriminately on wikipedia.Lumdeloo (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to this tomorrow evening or Sunday, if I can find the time to read it. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate what I've said before. These arguments will not be successful. The images will remain off the Glen Campbell videography. All of these arguments have been tried before. None of it has ever flown. The basic principle remains. If the videos are in fact notable, they can have their own articles where these images may be appropriate. They are not appropriate on this article, no matter how much argumentation there is. I'm sorry. That is how it is here. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't read it. I got to "OK, but first let's discuss the definition of "list articles"." No, let's not, I don't give a shit about semantics. Stop your lawyering, and find yourself some respect for our mission and non-free content guidelines/criteria. If you don't like the fact we're free content, go and find yourself another project. I'm sorry to say that, but it's the way it is. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So what do I do now? Basically both of you don't want to discuss this (anymore), right? But I am still not convinced the images should be removed according to the relevant guidelines. Hammersoft, if my arguments have been tried and failed before, please spend a few minutes explaining me why they exactly failed, instead of just stating that they will be unsuccesful? If I don't receive a reply anymore I will look for other ways to resolve this conflict (I already saw there's a guideline about that as well!). Since I'm new to this, that might take some time though. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want the policies changed, go and work on getting the policies changed. If you want to demonstrate what those images are adding to that article, which is what I have asked from the start, stay here. It's not a particularly difficult choice. J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. I don't need to have the policies changed. I have not been able to find any information or archived discussion to prove that removal of the images should be the outcome for an article like this. And I'm apparantly discussing this with two people who are not willing to explain it to me as well. I will seek assistance from a third party.

Lumdeloo (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and Hammersoft are the third opinions. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Image help

Thanks for responding to my help request. I'm after images for two stamps - jamaica 6d abolition of slavery and Jamaica 1sh inverted frame. I've found a few but for reasons stated earlier I'm reluctant to use them. Diogenes1066 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Narduwar

I'll try to do that sometime today, though, honestly, Stax was maybe just a little mischevious for putting me in as co-nominator for showing it to him. =P Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding image deletion

Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page regarding the copyright information on one image file I uploaded on Wikipedia. A fresh copy of the same image is uploaded here. The copyright information for this file is specified accurately. Hope that is enough. In case of a problem, please reply on my talk page. Thank you. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank Abagnale image

Thaejas Kocherlakota 10:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. The image File:FrankAbagnaleJr.jpg has been downloaded from the link http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-collar/2008/5/19/how-frank-abagnale-would-swindle-you.html Hence, request you to remove your comments on the above.

I would appreciate that your comments be polite in nature when you talk to other users. The first purpose of uploading a file from the internet is a modified verision which was available on the net. As I have modified the image and created a new one, I feel it is my own work. I will be deleting your in-appropriate comments on my talk page.

I take offence

Me after reading your comment.

I take GREAT offence to this comment you made on my talkpage:

“ While I'm here, this talk page is massive (due in part to the ridiculous userpage content at the top- use your user page for that stuff) and the unarchived newsletters ”

You're giving me the Impression that you think my user and talkpage is more ridiculous than anything else. I always thought you were belong that, criticizing someone's userpage and talkpage because they enjoy having them like that. All I can is, that I'm disappointed at this. Other than this atrocious quote, I agree with what you wrote. I'll be on break for a couple of days.. I'm so mad. Secret Saturdays ¡(............................)!