User talk:MECU

Please read if you are here to discuss an image:

If I marked an image of yours and you do not oppose the deletion, you do not need to notify me. If I marked the image as replaceable fair use, you need to follow the directions on the tag to dispute it. Providing your dispute here will not help you; though notifying me that you are disputing the tag will be appreciated. If I have tagged it as missing a source or missing a copyright tag and you have added the required information, just remove the deletion tag. Take care, though, that you have added a full source, not just "I got this from their website". If I have nominated a freely licensed orphaned image for deletion at WP:IFD and you feel that it might be useful somewhere sometime just not right here, right now, see directions for moving it to Wikimedia Commons. If you are here to give me a notice about a fair use image that I "uploaded" and you are marking orphaned, no rationale, or any other tag, I am most likely NOT the author. If you look on the history tag of the image, you will see the uploader as the first edit, and where I later fair use reduced the image which then requires I upload the image and past versions deleted making it look like I uploaded it. Please contact the author. I don't care about the images so leaving me a notice isn't notifying the uploader who likely would care and take action.

My Admin recall policy: User:MECU/selfadminpolicy

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

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

Please respect Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

Archives
June 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 August-November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007-1 & 2 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Yes, I deleted the message because I 'cooled off.' Actually, I also thought it sounded pretty silly too. Just came to the conclusion that, in the general scheme of things - war, famine, poverty etc - Wikipedia really isn't worth getting stressed about. Yes, your deletion decisions caused me no end of grief for 24 hours, but what is a day in a whole life?--Seahamlass (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Images

I see from a perusal of the old Operation Rolling Thunder article that the images you tagged for deletion are now gone. Even after I gave you complete attributions for all of them. Oh well, I guess the article really is better off without them. Let me make a suggestion. Go to my user page and take all 14 other A-Class articles and delete all of the images, which, by the way have no better attributions than the ones I gave you for Rolling Thunder. I'm sure the readers of Wiki would extol yer perceptiveness in all things attributable. As a matter of fact, I may beat you to the punch and delete them myself. I'll give you a week. After all, I have hard copy of all of the articles and pictures, and my publisher has been calling. Well, good luck in your future in the world of the Wikiverse.RM Gillespie (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaks My Heart

Don't stop now, what you don't do, I'll do myself. FIGMO. RM Gillespie (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC) .

Please don't notify me for each one

I know, the pics aren't up to code, it's ok, just do your thing. Speciate (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not feeling the love either

I'm in general, not happy about the situation either. But, I don't think an RFC would solve anything. Enforcing image policy is like banging your head against a brick wall. Sorry. Megapixie (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of me

I originally did a B&W, Sepia and Color picture for the article on Sepia tone, to show the difference between sepia and black and white, also, because someone had used a Playboy playmate for a previous example, which would not qualify for fair use. Since then, someone else found a better picture (something nonspecific if I remember correctly) for sepia tone. This means that I no longer need the B&W or Sepia Images. As noted above, if you had marked them for deletion I would not need to do anything, but I see that - perhaps out of respect - you asked me first. If you have administrator priveleges or otherwise can delete photos, I have no problem with the deletion of the black and white and sepia images and you may do a speedy or immediate delete on those two. As you noted, I am still using the color image, so of course I would object to deletion of the color image (but as you said you were not raising an issue of the color image I presumed you were not planning to do so anyway, but when it comes to something as permanent as an erasure I tend to be anal retentive in being exact, if not pedantically so). Thank you for asking me. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing images at PUI

Sorry about that. I didn't completely understand the instructions given. By the way, if I'm making a mistake by tagging these images let me know. Thanks.Shinerunner (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bogus No Source tag

Hi, You tagged Image:NDBalance.gif with the no source tag even though it clearly says "Source: U.S. Census Bureau" in the image description. Am I missing something here? Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That is not a sufficient source. Did you get it from a website? A publication that you scanned? Saying you got it from the "US Census" is like saying you got a burger from McDonald's. It's very vague and can't be verified. Thank you for your understanding. MECU≈talk 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would state that on either my talk page notice, the image discussion page, or in the edit summary, rather than just using generic notices for something that is arguably not a violation of Wikipedia:Image use policy. In a situation such as this, I do not believe it is appropriate to simply stick a No Source tag on the image. Wikipedia:Image use policy states that the source is "the copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from". In this case I have listed the copyright holder of the image, the U.S. Census Bureau. If you would like a source that is easier to verify, you should state that, not queue the image for deletion. Nearly every person I know personally that has contributed images to Wikipedia has stated that they no longer have any desire to add image to the project because of the "image nazis". Please don't be so trigger happy to delete images. It is not a very collaborative way to improve Wikipedia. If an image's description requires clarification, let the uploader know that with a real message to their talk page, not just with a generic unfriendly template. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think {{bsr}} would be a much better choice. There's no reason to threaten deletion for images that the Image use policy doesn't explicitly require us to delete. Even if we do want to delete those images, I think we should give more than a week's notice for images that at least have some sort of source information. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to be f****** kidding

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:NASA_bipropellant_Lrockth.gif&action=history

Congratulations, marking an in-use image for deletion because it has a NASA tag on it is easily the lamest thing I've ever seen anybody ever do in the wikipedia, by a very long way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey wolf, I think I fixed it for you. MECU doesn't know what he's talking about. If logo's arn't allowed, check out the NASA logo page. Besides, Nasa said that you can use their images as long as they don't promote anything. says so on thier site. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Poverty map

Hi, regarding this: My problem isn't so much that he's "stealing" my work, which I really don't care about. My problem is disinformation using my work as its basis. It's pretty obvious that when someone clones a map and changes 3 or 4 countries without giving a source for their "new" information, then inserts the map onto a popular article in place or alongside the original map, that there's something up. I'll also point out that the user Cocoliras has repeatedly changed data regarding those same Latin American countries on the List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty article. I don't even mean just inserting new, unsourced info; he keeps changing the CIA and UN data to show those Latin American countries as half of what their poverty rates actually are. There is nothing helpful about allowing this user to keep the uploaded map when their intent is clearly to deceive, regardless of whether or not it complies with the copyright. Sbw01f (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the tip. Will do. Sbw01f (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:NAF_Mildenhall.jpg

Please note, I have noted the source on the image, the RAF Mildenhall Public Affairs Office. As a product of the federal government is is a public domain image. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or issues. Ndunruh (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the web page to the image (the images are under the 'Art' link at teh top). Please let me know if you'd like more info.Ndunruh (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:NCShipbuildingCo.JPG

I feel extremely antagonized when I get messages like yours. Please stop sending them. Lou Sander (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)