User talk:Postdlf/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


US government portraits

Greetings. Back in May, you commented at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The issue has lain dormant for over two months, and is still unresolved. I have attempted to summarize the findings of fact, in the hopes of resolving this debate. Your comments here would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • As the images only exist on the commons, we should hold the debate about the copyright there and not continue to have it in two places. --evrik 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy, Jr.

Hello again! A few weeks ago, you commented on our posting links to the Last Will and Testaments of certain famous individuals who have biographies on Wikipedia. We posted a message to that effect on the discussion pages. Someone recently followed the message and posted a link to John F. Kennedy, Jr's Last Will and Testament on his article. However, User:Clawson has removed the link but stated that,if another Wikipedian put it back, he would not object. Since you seemed to favor the links previously, would you be so kind as to restore it for me? I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Livingtrust 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal advice at Commons

Gott zum Gruß. Da du versicherst, grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse zu haben, wollen wir (Plural majestatis) die mal testen :-) Nicht, dass wir nicht holpriges Englisch zustandebekämen, aber das wollen wir (Plural devotionis) dir ersparen. Da der hauptberufliche Jurist der Wikimedia Foundation nicht um Copyright-Fragen auf Commons kümmern kann/will, werden die Leutchen dort ziemlich im Regen stehen gelassen. Meine eigenen Kenntnisse beschränken sich auf das deutsche Urheberrecht (ich war in der de WP Bildrechtespezialist), aber Lupo hat exzellente Kenntnisse des relevanten Rechts und man sollte dort mehr auf ihn hören. Ich habe keine Ahnung, ob du Copyright-Spezialist bist, aber auf Commons wäre man froh über jeden ernsthaften juristischen Beistand. Besten Gruß aus einem kleinen Weinort an der Mosel --Historiograf 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS case categories

Hi, got your message about Category:Oregon law. I see what you mean and I'll revert my changes. However, it seems the category title of "Oregon law" is a bit of a misnomer, because something like Dolan v. City of Tigard would certainly seem to fall into the category if you are not familiar with it. It seems as if Category:Oregon laws would almost be more appropriate. I see that there is a Category:Maine laws; has there ever been any discussion on renaming all of the "State law" categories to "State laws"? -Big Smooth 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, and I prefer "law" myself because the law of a state is broader than what its discrete laws are. Otherwise, this would exclude articles on legal topics (e.g., capital punishment in Virginia, Delaware corporation, domestic partnerships in District of Columbia), legal institutions (chiefly state courts), and legal doctrines (e.g., redhibition). This is also why we have Category:United States federal legislation (i.e., "laws") as a subcategory of Category:United States federal law. I'm going to list the Maine category for renaming in conformity with the others. Postdlf 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dwight Watson, American terrorist

I don't feel very strongly one way or the other, but the man was convicted for threatening to detonate explosives in a public area, in order to get attention for certain political causes (though arguably, because of simple nuttiness). Why don't you think the label "terrorist" is appropriate for that? It would seem to fit the definition given at Category:Terrorists. Postdlf 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainly, he did not target civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talkcontribs)
Could you elaborate as to what you mean? Because I'm not sure that's an accurate description, given where and how he made his threats. (BTW, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~) Postdlf 02:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
He drove a tractor that had no explosives into a pond, well removed from other people and then made his threats from the pond. If you can call not having explosives as a form of targeting, he was targeting a national monument and the government that was represented by it, but not civilians. Terrorism is fundamentally the targeting of civilians as a definite distinct strategy for creation of the terror. This fellow was supremely ineffective in that regard, probably because he had no interest in targeting civilians but rather in getting attention.
I do try to sign but sometimes slip up.--Blue Tie 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So he wasn't a terrorist just because he wasn't very good at it? It isn't like this was perpetrated after hours; the Mall, including Constitution Gardens, is a heavily trafficked tourist area during the day. It was mostly federal property that was evacuated, but it wasn't military; there were only civilians around. Whether or not he thought about that fact, he tried to use the threat of an explosion in an area that was not used for military purposes and was heavily populated by civilians in order to communicate a message to the government. Postdlf 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be unclear. He wasn't a terrorist because he didn't target civilians. He was singularly ineffective for that reason. Had he targeted civilians he would have been more effective but probably also dead, from sharpshooters. Having been on the mall many times, I do not consider it heavily populated by civilians, except during special events. The area near the pools are often nearly deserted. (There is some traffic on the sidewalks but these are some distance away). Here is a picture. You can see that if you drive a tractor into the water, you are not near too many people, especially in the Winter, when it is chilly. If you wanted to target people, you would go to the train station just a few blocks away instead. Its always full of people. Or you could go to the Washington Monument where people are often lined up. You could even go to the Capitol Steps a hundred yards away. Anywhere would be better than inside the pools at the Mall, if you were interested in attacking people. --Blue Tie 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Regarding this edition... Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. --Abu Badali 10:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite evident from that article's edit history that it has been subject to vandal-blanking for quite some time. Please don't waste my time on such matters. Postdlf 15:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

design patents

Thank you for your contribution to design patents. Do you have a reference?--Nowa 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In Brief: Amendment Extending Patent Passed in Senate. BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, June 30, 2006. Postdlf 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold () 09:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Floyd Abrams articles

Yeah, I think it's headed for "no consensus" unfortunately. I hope others will see your post at WP:SCOTUS and chime in. If no consensus is reached, however, perhaps we can be bold and merge the articles into an article on the book. Shankbone has already said that he has "no problem with a merge" in response to Eastlaw at Afd. Other than that, I don't have any ideas other than to solicit assessments of the Afd from individual users (though I try to stay away from that). · j e r s y k o talk · 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


in re: AFD of said article. Sounds like a good idea. Cheers V. Joe 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image source and 2004 uploaded images.

Hello, you recently tagged for speedy delete under terms of Category:Images with unknown source the picture Image:Gatordrawingx.gif from the American alligator article. Please note that the rule you are referring to was not created until many months after the image was first uploaded. Even then, the speedy delete rule is meant for images with "no" source listed. The source listed was incomplete - but not entirely lacking.

This is not splitting hairs since in February of 2004 when that image was uploaded, the way it was sourced was correct to the then-current Wikipedia standards. But now that you brought up the issue of current requirements, it has been rectified to 2006 standards - even though the 2-year-old image is no longer available online from the Fish and Wildlife service. (Apparently The U.S. government is phasing out commissioned line-art illustrations in favor of less-expensive digital photographs.)

In the future when faced with this issue, may I suggest that instead of pulling the speedy delete nomination trigger immediately on these incompletely sourced, pre-July 2004 images, you first contact the uploader to see if he or she can update the image sourcing information to 2006 standards?

This may accomplish three things: 1. getting the correct sourcing information and preventing a rare PD image from being deleted, 2. cut down on the speedy delete backlog, and 3. help ensure a healthy and collegial collaborative environment among Wikipedia editors.

By the way, your formatting tweaks of American alligator and the new lead photo were spot-on. - Davodd 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete request

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Could you please delete this template? I have transferred the contents of this page to the correct namespace which is this. If you agree to this, subsequent templates having the same content as the portal namespaces (which I will be creating in the future) would be listed for speedy deletion. I need your expert opinion in this matter as well and please tell me of any concerns you may have regarding this issue. Thank you for your kind understanding and patience. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never worked with any of the portals, but it looks like the common practice is to move and redirect, as was done with Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Algeria, which redirects to Portal:Algeria). I'll undo your copy-and-paste move (which does not preserve the edit history) and turn it into a true move. There also appears to be a bot that handles these things automatically (User:Portal namespace initialisation script). Postdlf 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this seems to be a better option but I wish to raise up a concern. The bot you have just mentioned deals with Wikipedia namespaces while the template, in which you have changed into a redirect page, is a template namespace. I do not think that this bot would deal with these types of namespaces. If this is the case, I would have to manually redirect these templates as well. Anyway thanks for the info and please inform me on my talk page if you have any better ideas in dealing with these edits. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point; you might have to manually do the moves. But I don't see any problem with you doing that; just make sure you are actually moving the page instead of just pasting the content into a different title. Postdlf 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind advise with regards to this issue. This minor issue can finally be addressed. Moreover, notice that all the currently featured portals link to the proper sub-portal namespaces as well (correct me if I am wrong about this!).--Siva1979Talk to me 18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the advise. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, is my latest edit in template namespace acceptable now? --Siva1979Talk to me 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Postdlf 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohio State University categories

  • Reply to Postdlf

Hi Postdlf: I can see why you are confused by the subcategories I created. However, if you think about placing things in categories or subcategories yourself, you would probably be more confused. As you said (I also have agreed) that the names I created do not correspond to any other preexisting categories, and the ordering principles. That is because I do not see people try to categories or subcategories them here in wiki before. For example, under the Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, you may see they put Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign alumni and Category:UIUC stubs. For the Category:UIUC stubs, that means anything can go in there. To me, it is useless to categorize things that way.

From my view, any university consists of people, tangible things, and its spirit. When I tried to list academic professors, alumni, tangible things, and its spirit in wiki and place their associations to their universities, I have a problem finding suitable categories. That why I came up with Category:List of Ohio State University people, Category:Ohio State University landmarks properties and facilities and Category:Ohio State University enthusiasm and entertainment. You may help to put better wordings for these categories.

In addition, I also would like to put an emphasize on academic as well as athletics. After all universities are about education. As you may see the trend, here in wiki, is toward entertainment (although I have no problem with it because it is driven by market and demand). As you see when you check on university faculty, you will find only categories for athletic coaches listed there. When you check alumni, you can see only categories for athletic players. That is also why I put the academic term in there and categorize them separately PS: Sorry I have problems placing hyper texts--Ohho 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lending Library

That's a great idea! I worry a bit that it's going to easily devolve into something primarily used for self-expression, but if it can avoid that, it seems like it would be very useful. One idea would be to somehow hook into the existing ISBN stuff (which I presume you've seen). I suspect that in the end it might require a bit of developer support to really get this right though. One thing to stress is geographic proximity (or at least listing) so people don't need to go too far to find a book they need. Another option would be to find/create a site that does this already and hook Wikipedia up to it via that ISBN page, and just work on publicity to get people using it. There are plenty of interesting options.. --Improv 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Geography is something that the individual wikipedians could work out in communication if it came to that, though maybe the database could list the user's location too. However, the primary usage I was seeing this put to was 1) User A needs info on Franklin Roosevelt, does a search, and finds that User B owns a biography of him. 2) User A contacts User B on his talk page with his question, asking whether that biography may have the answer he's looking for. 3) User B consults the biography in his living room. 4) User B posts his response. I suspect the alternate will happen, but less frequently: 1) User A needs info, does search, 2) contacts User B, 3) User B decides he doesn't understand the subject or has no use for the book and offers to send it to User A; 4) User A and User B then discuss off-site how to transfer it.
By self-expression, did you mean "This is a list of my favorite movies that I own?" I was thinking that the participants wouldn't be able to annotate it in any way, and that there could be the option of seeing lists of materials by owner, but typically the search would be for a specific title, or a keyword, and then the results would just show a list of users who claim to own it. If a participant repeatedly fails to respond to requests for information, we could have that be grounds for removal from the database.
RE: ISBN, that should be one of the parameters in the database, but we should ensure that it can include works that were pre-adoption of the ISBN system, as well as works in other media, such as DVDs, VHS, CDs, vinyl, etc. Postdlf 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal/troll deleting AMG as "spam"

Re: WP:VPP (5 October 2006) "Does the new spam policy prohibits AMG, Discogs, MusicBrainz,"

The vandal is back and deleted the AMG discog again as "link spam" [1]. 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me; I've restored the link and left a message on the article's talk page as well as the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music talk page. Be careful about the use of derogatory terms such as "vandal" or "troll." What we have so far is just a disagreement that we can still assume is honest. Postdlf 14:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Marvel category

This is in response to your post on the comics project talk page. I've cleaned the category completely, but try to keep an eye on it if you can. I'm sure people will dump articles in the category again. RobJ1981 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)



What have you done to my picture please restore it. It has gone all skinny Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why crop. Your ammendment in the writing is ok but PLEASE don't crop it. Please return it to its original appearance, THankyou. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed extra space from the sides that was not even part of the original photo; no information was lost. Postdlf 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I know you are trying to help but please restore the sides as it has made the picture go horrible and unclear. thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not about information it has seriously affected the quality of the picture. I knwo it has large borders but can't you moderate it so she doesn't look like an alien. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because it's a low resolution image, and you had set it to display within articles at a larger size (which shows the pixellation) to account for the extraneous width that I just cropped. Just reduce the pixel size. Postdlf 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you don't need to give a fair use rationale for public domain pictures. Public domain means the copyright has expired, so labelling such images also "fair use" is just confusing. You've been applying the correct copyright tag, however. Postdlf 20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Drew barrymore on letterman.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Drew barrymore on letterman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Doo Dah Parade picture

Thanks for your addition, man. Now all we need is a picture of the Pasadena Doo Dah Parade! Cheers. °·°·°·°·°UncleFester 05:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't help there. I was thinking actually of posting another one for the Columbus parade; I have several good images of the Marching Fidels from last year that would be more striking in thumbnail than the current one of the Rocky Horror crew. Postdlf 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Low level category deletion edit war at St. John's University School of Law

I'm looking for a third opinion on some edits I've made adding categories to this law school page. An administrator, User:Crzrussian reverted my edits, and I reverted them back and started a discusion. Please let me know what you think.--Cdogsimmons 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on that article's talk page; thanks for your question. Postdlf 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio from Originalsinner brought up on ANI

I figure this is up your alley. Would you please comment on this thread on AN/I. As I understand it pertains to possibility of copyvio against a fanpage when taking licensed images from them. Thanks! --NewtΨΦ 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in page move

Hi Postdlf,

I made a mistake in moving Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. to Quality King Distributors, Inc., v. L'Anza Research International Inc. (note the capitalization difference. I realize now that this was in error. Is there any way to fix this? --Eastlaw 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take care of it. Postdlf 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it's fixed. In this case, because the title to which you wanted to move the article had no edit history other than as a redirect, the article could be moved to that title without having to bother with deleting the redirect. Otherwise, the target would have to be deleted to perform the move. Postdlf 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Postdlf. You da man.  :) --Eastlaw 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of esoteric programming languages

Hi, I will not prune the list during the deletion debate, but I can assure you that no entries would remain apart from those already in Category:Esoteric programming languages. Would you reconsider/clarify your vote? Cheers, —Ruud 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If I see a wider consensus to that effect, yes. There's no prohibition against changing the article during an AFD, btw, particularly when it would add clarity for those of us who are less familiar with programming languages; right now, it just looks like the list contains a lot more information than the category. Postdlf 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've pruned the list. —Ruud 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Monash Residential Services

You were incorrect in saying that the prior AfD "supported" merging, the AfD was one of the more confusing and less consensus "discussions" I have seen, and you were involved in it, so you should be able to reflect on it. Please do not portray discussions as being different to the official result. Ansell 00:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The "official result" was that there was no consensus "to delete," but the persuasive value of the AFD discussion is really peripheral to the current, obvious, and substantive reasons for merging, so it's really not worth getting into. Speaking of the merge, I'm wondering now whether the separate Clayton Campus article is the one that I should have merged the MRS content to? At least a couple people in the AFD seemed to say so, but MRS and the dorm descriptions were devoid of such clear and useful information. Postdlf 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

too quick

Man, Postdlf, you move too fast. I was in process of editing the box on Martin v. Hunter's Lessee when you took over producing edit conflicts. Of course your edits all look good to me so I reluctantly let mine fall away. I just wish we both hadn't spent the last hour putting in the same information. Happy editing.Mneumisi 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

reverted, why?

I added an entry of an MMORPG game that wasn't listed already to "List of MMORPG's", but that entry was deleted with no explanation, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaroslavvb (talkcontribs)

The entry was for a game that was speedy deleted by three different admins (including myself) as an advertisement for a non-notable product. Postdlf 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

whoa, speedy deletion

The article OH! The Humanity has been deleted from Wikipedia. If you're going to be deleting this entry, you may want to look at Olde English (sketch comedy) as well as all the other sketch comedy groups Ohthehum 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As the message I left on your talk page explained, I didn't delete your article because it was about a sketch comedy group; I deleted it because it was about a non-notable sketch comedy group. See speedy deletion criteria A7. I'm going to take your failure to set forth reliable sources establishing the notability of your comedy group to mean you cannot do so. If you conclude that there are other articles about similar groups that similarly fail to establish their notability per our criteria, feel free to tag them for speedy deletion by adding this text at the top of the article:
An admin will then consider it for deletion as well. Postdlf 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

my posts

thanks for showing me sandbox, i seriously didnt know what to do.. and for the jermaine dye i felt it could go there, i deleted the facial hair one though -.- thanks.

My page

Thanks for helping protect my user page from vandalism... is it possible to protect my user-page for a coupla days? V. Joe 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just semi-protected it, so new and unregistered users will be prevented from editing it, but experienced editors will be able to. Postdlf 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate it, thanks again...V. Joe 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Horseman Hulk

What was the business with the Hulk and the Horsemen of the Apocalypse? --Chris Griswold () 08:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this removal of a category synonymous with Category:Fictional characters who were brainwashed by Apocalypse for any length of time? I put the Horsemen category up for deletion to prevent any such further trivial categorization from happening. Postdlf 14:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

introductions / law / speech / cats

Hi; I'm User:Lquilter. I'm also an atty in NY/Boston, interested in comics (but not in wikipedia thus far), law, & categorization. I responded to your suggestion to delete the Category:Censorship advocates. I'm still feeling my way around wikipedia categorization, and indeed, more serious wiki participation & editing, but like you am interested in getting it right & making the whole thing functional & useful. (I'm a former librarian.) So -- I'd appreciate any thoughts / guidance you might have on this matter. The Law project didn't seem quite right, but maybe I'm missing some better way to organize & post what I'm doing for more participation. Thoughts? Guidance? Ideas? --LQ 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Operation Fatty Cakes"

If I had been actorly given a chance to finish the article, I had a lot of content to put in it. The article had barely been made 30 seconds and you were deleting it, which I don't appreciate.

Voiceypoo 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't post something that isn't yet suitable for posting, and don't even try to pretend that a post about "a small group of idiotic teens" who "enjoy filming pathetic acts of sheer stupidity to share with other" is a reasonable effort at making a quality article about a worthwhile subject. Postdlf 00:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Created by..." categories

Thanks for the direction and suggestion about the use/misuse of categories/Roy Thomas. I found this discussion very educational. Ironically, due to the ever-growing complexity of Wikipedia, it would have taken me forever to find that discussion if I hadn't gone ahead and created a category that "consensus" has decided is problematic. I will go ahead and listify as suggested but I still think it is a great idea for categories. A newbie,--Gothamgazette 07:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. A good place to propose new category ideas you may have is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, the central discussion board for those interested in comics-related articles. Postdlf 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


To discover the games existed? Hell yes, so was I! Moreschi 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Today is a good day.

Postdlf 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

An even better day?

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions to law-related articles, exemplified by the incredible SCOTUS justice opinion articles and tables, have a tireless contributor barnstar. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! It definitely brightened things up even more.  : ) Postdlf 02:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


You have done the more comprehensive research for George Bellows' birth date--thank you for your correction. Best wishes, JNW 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

State court judges

Since you proposed the CFD, I will ask for your assistance. Charles Edward Magoon was in Nebraska judges because we was (a/the) JAG for the Nebraska National Guard, prior to the Militia Act of 1903 which combined them into the present-day National Guard. "Nebraska judge" seemed correct then, but obviously wrong now. Where should it go? I'm sure there are many other cases like this that will have to be cleaned up... JRP 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay

You might be interested in the above, Phil asked me to help with it but my time has been limited. He says he's "trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing." Steve block Talk 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Discussions

As I'm sure you've seen, there's quite the little melee going on over in the fair use quadrant... Just a quick note to say your comments/views were much appreciated, and if you have any interest in rallying some legal-minded and administrator-type support toward your (in my mind) quite correct view of fair use of promtional images on Wikipedia, well, gosh, that would be swell.

'Cuz, you know, crazy people are going around, demanding the deletion of images that really don't need deleting. (My opinion)  :)

Thanks again, Jenolen 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Indiana Jones 1.jpg

Please add a FU rationale and some kind of a source. Thanks, feydey 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that as the uploader of the image You would have the best knowledge to source the image and give a fair use rationale. If You are unable to do that, then You are most welcome to seek assistance from Talk:Indiana Jones or where ever You want. I also have no comment on its use in bullwhip as there is no FU rationale on the image. With humble intentions, feydey 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing personal, I know you're just following standard procedure, but the shortcomings of those procedures have been frustrating me recently. I also wrote my comment on your talk page in a hurry... Anyway, aside from uploading the image, I don't believe I've ever edited that article; I did it to be helpful at a time when an obvious category of fair use was generally sufficient, because those categories were tailored towards images that had little to no intrinsic commercial value, and tended to be informative for their subjects. I'd like to see us go back to that, with disputes handed first on the relevant topic's talk page rather than just the uploader's, so more of those knowledgeable with the subject will be able to 1) track down or present specific source information, and 2) explain why it is particularly informative for the article. Except in obvious cases (such as scans from the inside of magazines rather than covers), I think that should be the first step instead of tagging an image for scheduled deletion—case-by-case deliberation rather than a more mechanical, automated process. There's no reason to rush. What often happens is an obvious publicity still that isn't sourced in detail, or a screenshot "used to depict the individual rather than the film" (even when the film is discussed in the article) is later replaced by someone with an image that has no reasonable fair use rationale at all. What are your thoughts? Postdlf 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
My intention is not to draw this to a long philosophical discussion, but to have a source and a FU rationale for the image. Best, feydey 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I posted a message on the article's talk page, so they can save it if they want to or can. Postdlf 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Robin Byrd

The original line reads "frequently engage in explicit onscreen sexplay by the end of the episode" to which I changed to "frequently engage in simulated..."

I live in New York and have watched the show many times. While the guests appear naked, there is never anything approaching "explicit onscreen sexplay." That implies the guests and Byrd are having actual sex. Byrd often pretends to give oral sex to the male guests by pushing her tongue into her cheek. She may lick a nipple at most but that's it.

No, I don't think "sexplay" means actual, penetrative sex, but if you can suggest a better word... I've seen her actually grab a guest's penis in her hand; nothing simulated about that. Postdlf 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Then I would suggest using neither, just: 'frequently engage in onscreen sexplay.' Lack of the modifier is a nice balance between 'simulated' and 'explicit.'
Works for me. Postdlf 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

per "idiocy"

Actually, the image is used twice: once at Beyoncé Knowles and again at User:Kirby2725. This is why I re-added the tag; for the former use, what you already had really was fine. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but the template sure didn't point that out. Why on earth didn't you just post a comment on Kirby2725's talk page, as the problem is one within his specific control? I believe we also have a flat rule against fair use images on user pages. Postdlf 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Stephanie Adams 2.jpg


Just thought you might like to know that an image you uploaded, Image:Stephanie Adams 2.jpg, is up for deletion. I didn't put the tag on there, I just wandered by and didn't see that you were notified like you were supposed to be. Luckily it hasn't been deleted yet, so hopefully this head's up will be useful. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I was notified; I just removed the notice. Postdlf 00:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


I didn't realize the CfD pages were that touchy. Thanks for the heads up. — J Greb 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor-ish list question.

I wanted to ask this of someone with a bit more experience before asking on the comic book project talk page...

Is there a set of guide lines in place for how team roster lists should be formatted? Or is left up to a case-by-case, editor-by-editor basis?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 00:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know... I remember seeing this topic on the project page awhile back but didn't participate; I'm sure a post there would get helpful responses. Postdlf 02:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

copyright copyleft CC GFDL etc

I saw your name on chowbok's talk page then looked at your page and see you seem to know about law and copyrights? I am very interested in learning how to decide what advantages, if any, there are for me to decide to designate a photo I took myself of a musician as Creative Commons, CC-by, CC by SA, or GFDL instead of reserving rights to myself and not posting it to wikipedia. I can't decide on something of mine and was thinking of asking a professional photographer for advice. This has nothing to do with any discussion I have up currently in any page. It's something I thought of after learning that promo photo status is no longer a safe way to get a photo up in to wikipedia only (since we can't be sure anyone else will give a photo credit). Also, re: photo credits, does wikipedia yet allow embedded photo credits in photos? I would probably give a photo out in a heartbeat if that were the case. I guess that's called a "watermark". Emerman 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your questions about the differences between the licenses are a little too broad to address without just quoting the terms of the licenses. As for the embedded photo credits, I'm not aware of any policy against them, but under any of the licenses that we use, anyone would of course be free to Photoshop it out. A better option (and one that doesn't clutter the image itself) would be to upload under one of the CC licenses that expressly requires attribution. Postdlf 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok RfC

I have begun RfC procedures for User:Chowbok. Since you've had previous disputes with him about image uploads, maybe you'd like to add your commentary? [2] TheQuandry 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome your input as well. —Chowbok 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Sigh...I'll see if I can figure out something helpful to say, but that RfC is a bloody mess. I don't like that my discussion with you is being characterized as of a piece with those other complaints, nor do I think that our disagreement (the extent of which I'm not yet even clear on) woud be the basis for an RfC. I've kind of seen you as amenable to persuasion.  : ) Postdlf 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons revert

Re:[3]. If you are right and we need fair use tag for that, then 99% of our 'free' images are not free, as almost everything around us is copyrighted. Please point me to the wikipedia copyright guideline that states that a photo of a copyrighted object cannot be published under a free licence by the photo creator.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's really 99%, but yes, all photographs of copyrighted sculptures should be removed from Commons. See Template:Statue; also this FAQ. This is not always understood on Wikipedia, but even more important than Wikipedia policy is the law: it's a very clear and undisputed principle in copyright law that a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture is a derivative work. This does not apply to architecture, however, so photos of buildings can be free. I am a lawyer, btw. Postdlf 16:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
See also Commons:Derivative works. Postdlf 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, we are speaking in two threads, but... anyway, check this article. There seem to be a discrepancy between it (it links some professional legal guides for photographers) and the C:DW above. Since you have background in law, I hope you may be able to understand which one is wrong better than I and help fix the relevant guideline (if it needs fixing).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I don't see a discrepancy, chiefly because he doesn't address at all whether the subject that you're taking a picture of is copyrighted. The principle that in the United States you can legally take a picture of anything you can see from public property is generally true, but that's not because copyright doesn't apply, but because fair use (or an implied license) would protect the mere taking of a photograph of anything that has been purposefully placed in public. Such fair use/implied license may or may not change as you progress from taking a picture to publishing it (i.e., posting it on Wikipedia), but copyright is indisputably still an issue. Postdlf 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Gardez Bien

You and the user Gardez Bien appear to be entering into a reversion war in three articles: Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and Maryland. I felt that the information provided for both Montgomery County and also the State of Maryland was of some use; whether the ultimate contribution consist of information, phrasing, or both. I removed a part of his edit from the Montgomery County but left the remainder in; and I shifted much of his information around in the State's article. Be advised that discussion has been initiated regarding these edits within both Counties: Montgomery and Prince George's. I welcome any further comments that you may have. At this time I do not yet believe it necessary to have a discussion regarding the State's edits. Thank you for your time and have a good day! --Thisisbossi 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bałtów Park Jurajski 001.jpg

This is my own photo. I've taken it in Bałtów, which is not far from a place where I live. On commons you could find a lot of my pictures taken in this place. Could you please explain why do you think it is copyright violation? Perhaps someone use it without giving proper notice about author? Many thanks in advance. Jakubhal 06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that you took the photo. The problem is that it's a photo of a (presumably) copyrighted stegosaurus sculpture, which means that your photo is a derivative work. Copyright protection extends to such derivatives. You accordingly need some license, fair use right, etc. regarding that sculpture to make use of your photo, unless you can establish that the sculpture is in the public domain. Postdlf 15:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are correct that as I said above MAJORITY of our images are up for deletion. For example, see images linked from the modern art, post-IIWW sections. The objects are almost all certainly copyrighted, yet most of the photos of them are free. This is an issue that has to be addressed on a wider forum. PS. Please copy your replies to my talk page - I watch my page for replies, but not those of other people. Thank you,-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am correct, and yes, the images of the Picasso sculpture and the array of Warhol Campbell's Soup prints should never have been uploaded to Commons, because the works they depict are copyrighted. See Commons:Derivative works. Postdlf 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We live and learn :) Since for the Bałtów village and the park organizers it is a free advertisment it is in their own best interest to have well illustrated articles here. Jakubhal is going to ask them for permission to publish his photos under the licences they are now, is there anything else you'd recommend to him?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of warnings

This issue is completely separate from the other conversation and it became that way as soon as you decided to respond the way you did. Not only that, but after a valid warnings was placed here, you decided to delete it with a response of "stop wasting time and discuss the issues I've raised." After I restored here and gave a separate warning for a separate incident here, you again decided to delete them with a response of "thanks, I saw that, now let's focus on continuing the discussion." I'm quite surprised with these edits and concerned with administration processes, especially considering that as an admin, you should know valid warnings are not to be removed from a user talk page unless archived properly. What is your reasoning behind this? Roguegeek (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Because 1) it's completely absurd to pop over from an ongoing discussion on an image talk page that you are engaged in with me to post a "warning" on my personal talk page regarding a comment of mine in that discussion, instead of addressing your issue to me there; 2) I consider your "warning" completely frivolous considering the statement it was regarding: "I'm sorry if this comes across as a personal attack, but you're simply not very good at analyzing an image's content and information if you can't understand these distinctions [between a photograph that depicts an actor while in-character and a photograph that does not]." This falls ridiculously short of a "personal attack," and even if it could be considered uncivil, immediately jumping to the shrillness of a separate user talk page warning instead of discussing it with me in the context of the ongoing discussion was a total overreaction. 3) Your repeated posts of this "warning" on my talk page seem like you're senselessly trying to exacerbate a dispute that has been frustrating but largely civil, and is now essentially over thanks to the consensus that clearly emerged with the joining of the other contributors. To what end? Please move on instead of continuing with this unnecessary display. Postdlf 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Moving on is probably not a bad idea at this point considering the circumstances. Your comments were, at the very least, uncivil and if you thought for a second they wouldn't be a personal attack, you wouldn't have disclaimed it as such before making them. I would suggest the next time you feel your comments could be in any way close to a personal attack, insulting, or uncivil, just don't make them. As for discussing it with you in that particular discussion, why burden all of the other editors with that conversation? It was in no way advantageous for them to witness your response in the first place and I much rather wanted to stay on subject and work through what needed to be worked though. This conversation was brought on the moment you decided to point fingers and passive aggressively name call. Normally if this happens, it's with a new editor. I'll throw a little "hey check out this policy" note on their talk page and leave it at that. But to have this same thing come from an administrator?! Well that's simply inexcusable and, furthermore, unfortunate. Unfortunate for any editors included in the conversation. I'm thankful I've dealt with enough constructive administrators at this point to know the difference between your actions and theirs and to know that a large percentage of them can be trusted with that role and representation. And with that, I'll take your advice and move on. Roguegeek (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


One finds that some individuals who do not possess the ability to exert significant control over others in their employment or day-to-day existence are quick to seize and use such in virtual fora, as, for example, Internet subcultures. The worst part of this is that logic or compromise don't seem to be effective tools in dealing with such individuals. This is becoming more and more apparent. Badagnani 06:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free photos of bands

There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It has a potential effect on many other images, and I'm really not sure where I fall on this. If you'd like to chime in, your input would be valued.

Also, did you know about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? I thought you might be interested. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out; the band photo is a difficult one, hopefully the questions I posted will spur some answers.
I noticed the Abu badali RfC. While I believe he's worked in good faith, my own experience with him has been that he rigidly regurgitates stock sentences rather than actually addressing the specific image (and related articles) before him. He has also largely shown little ability to respond to counterarguments. This has made me think that he (like so many others who seem to do little but tag images) simply lacks a sophisticated understanding of how to apply the policies, but also of how to "read" images and connect them to article content (I would not say this is true of you at all, btw). But while I think there's a legitimate problem with his conduct, like the Chowbok RfC this one just seems to collapse into a lot of people just whining about the policies themselves instead of nuanced criticism about how the particular individual is misapplying them. I guess I'll just watch to see if someone expresses a view I can endorse. Postdlf 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And now that I read it, it looks like yours is pretty good. I'll probably endorse it. Postdlf 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

A request for a peer review of New Universe has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe. I'd appreciate your comments on the article, hopefully it will kickstart the comics project's peer review process. To comment, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. Steve block Talk 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted page "Eternal Sunshine (album)"

A page you created, or image you uploaded, Eternal Sunshine (album), has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:

Articles providing little or no context.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love the boilerplate warnings... I didn't create that article. I created the redirect Eternal Sunshine, which someone else turned into an article about some album. Someone then moved that article to Eternal Sunshine (album) (thereby moving my totally unrelated redirect edit in the history along with it), and then recreated the same redirect I had at the original title that I had posted mine. In other words, you left your message on the wrong talk page. Please check the deleted history of that article to determine who actually created the content you deleted. Cheers, Postdlf 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S., try not to use the notices that are obviously designed for new users on users who are not new.
Hey, I spent a long on time this message! It's not exactly a "warning"... just an explanation. Anyway, the alternative is not informing users at all. (I don't know if you're familiar with CAT:CSD, but given the speed it fills up there just isn't time to leave a personalized message for everyone. There'll be another 30 pages in there now when I'm done writing you this). Furthermore, I only use this notice for speedy deletions... experienced users' new articles don't get speedy deleted, so there shouldn't be a problem there.
Anyway, I'm sorry, I must have overlooked the fact that you made a redirect. I'll go find the correct user now. – Gurch 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a well written warning. I suppose it is an unusual case for an experienced editor to be the "creator" of a speedied article, so not really something you'd be expecting. Postdlf 05:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy George

I responded at Image talk:BoyGeorge.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite suggestion

I don't know how soon this may get archived by a bot, but it seems like nothing is happening. Shouldn't we be get more proactive? Since no objections were raised, I think we can be bold and more the proposal into a policy page. What do you think? I would have tried on my own, but I am not a native speaker and try to not do large chunks on the policy pages. Cheers, --Irpen 03:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Evanescence covers

Greetings! I noticed you restored the covers on the article Evanescence. This has been some debate lately, and one that needs to be settled. I take it then that scanned (aka "digitally photographed") reproductions are allowed as not falling under fair use? Or are they still fair use (despite not being originally owned by the company) are simply meet FUC? I appreciate all assistance in clearing this issue up, as we do hope to eventually raise this article to FA, or at least GA, status. Cheers! -- Huntster T@C 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The only relevant copyright is that of the album cover itself, so that's all that the fair use analysis needs to consider. An accurate photograph of a two-dimensional work is not itself independently copyrightable, because it's merely a copy that adds nothing original. This is not controversial, even if it is not widely understood. Postdlf 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to this, it helps a lot. Thanks also for posting on the article's talk. -- Huntster T@C 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use advice

Postdlf, sorry to bug you again about this image. His law firm told me to tag it as fair use, but the fair use page indicates fair use can't be used for simple portraits of living persons (ie: just decorative, like in WP:FAIR#Policy, #9), since you can just go take another picture of them. In any case, if you think the fair use is invalid, you're welcome to delete it as WP:CSD#G7.--Kchase T 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I finally found a freer version. Will upload it shortly.--Kchase T 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

you went to upper arlington and Jones? cool

Copyright lawyer/Wikipedia editor


I would like to bring the following matter to your attention: on the page Image talk:Werbowy.jpg User:Irpen quoted a comment you wrote on Wikipedia talk:Fair use regarding "categorically replaceable images" (diff, referring to a comment you wrote here).

Without raising the issue of the use of fair use images on Wikipedia, I believe that you should be aware that he referred to you as "an active participant of these discussions and also a copyright lawyer". I do not know if you made that comment in your professional capacity or in the role of a contributor to Wikipedia?

Sincerely, --Oden 12:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a lawyer who knows something about copyright, though I am not actually a "copyright lawyer" in that it is (unfortunately) not a part of my regular practice. As far as "professional capacity," I'm not representing anyone on here as my client, so to the extent that my opinion is authoritative in any way, its really just as far as my words have their own persuasive force, and if people want to credit that I've studied and practiced law and know something about it, that's up to them of course. But in that quote, I was actually just restating and elaborating upon Wikipedia policy, I wasn't making a statement about the law. And I don't think my statement supported Irpen's position at all because he didn't establish that the image provided relevant information that a free image could not (a successful example would be that the model is now 60 and the photo shows her during her career in her 20s). Thanks for pointing out the invocation of my words to me. Postdlf 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD Category:Pool and Snooker computer games to Category:Billiards computer games

That move hasn't take place yet; is that just a matter of time or was it forgotten? I'm not sure how CFD works in the details... It might not really need to be, since it looks like Billiards will move to Cue sport and all the related categories will be up for rename at the same time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if the move to the alternate name of "cue sports computer games" would occur, but the parent article is still at billiards and no category moving had taken place. Accordingly, I just conducted the move per the CFD and deleted the original category. Postdlf 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your SuicideBoys reverts.

There isn't a SuicideBoys site, but it's not necessarily related to SuicideGirls. A redirect is definitely not necessary. A few sentences in the SuicideGirls article would be more fitting, or just a good article for SuicideBoys. ~ EdBoy[p]\[m]/[c] 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the term only has meaning in relation to SuicideGirls, and there is a board (?) on that site by that name for the male equivalent. Deleting the redirect will just leave it open to recreation with the same substanceless garbage I keep on reverting ("Suicide Boys is a play on words of the popular website "Suicide Girls". Currently no Suicide Boys website exists."). I was thinking about protecting the redirect, though I suppose we could delete it and salt. Postdlf 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law question

Although the issue that raised this question seems to have resolved itself, I figured the answer could be useful for the future: what is the copyright status of public domain works that have been digitally watermarked? My best guess was that, since the watermark is a creative work, the watermarked image would be a derivative work of the watermark, and would therefore be subject to the watermark's copyright (i.e. not pd). Am I correct in this assumption? It seemed like the sort of thing there might be special standards for, although I was unable to locate any myself. If you have any quick answers to this question (no need to spend time researching it), it would me much appreciated and useful for the future. --RobthTalk 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's even necessary to think of it as a derivative—the watermarked image would simply include a copy of the watermark like a post-it note on a sheet of paper, so you should do your best to strip off that watermark "post-it" to avoid copying it. But consider whether the watermark is actually capable of copyright protection, which it won't be if it's just a simple logo (as I've seen Corbis use). Could you show me what watermark you were considering? I'm also pretty good with Photoshop, so I could help remove watermarks. Postdlf 04:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The watermark in question is the one on this image; that watermark doesn't need removing, since a better (non-watermarked) copy of the map has already been uploaded. The underlying map is obviously still pd; I don't know whether combining that image with another image, the watermark, produces a copyrighted work that is a derivative of both. When you say a "simple logo", do you mean a text-based logo? I assume that most image logos are copyrighted. --RobthTalk 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant a logo that falls short of being graphic or pictorial, like the "Arabian Gulf Maps" watermark in that image. It's a phrase that is too short to be copyrightable as writing, and it's only visual quality is the font appearance, which is also not copyrightable, in the U.S. at least (and they likely didn't invent or even modify the font, regardless). There's nothing copyrightable there. Postdlf 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That is very useful to know for the future. --RobthTalk 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A Little Extreme, But Hey...

Extremeness in defense of Wikipedia is no vice, right? So buzz on over to Image_talk:Eugene_Volokh.jpg and tell me if I'm crazy (which I probably am) or if really, I can do anything I want with this image. PLEASE NOTE: I have NO personal ax to grind with the subject of this photo; I'm just trying to push and prod to figure out where my rights to a public domain image begin, and his personality rights go away. My basic, crudely constructed argument, likely unworthy of even a first year law student, goes something like this: A photo in the public domain may be freely reused by anybody for any purpose. (The photographer has released his rights to the photo, and so has the subject. Let's assume, for the moment, that there are no other buildings or commercial items in the photo which require clearance, such as a Coke can, a poster of the Empire State Building, etc.) Therefore, I believe that I am free to use that image in a commercial way, if I so desire. And, should I so desire to comment on, say, lawyers and their predilictions for underage children (Which, it should be noted, I have no desire to do.. we're well in to the "proving a point" round of "what if"), I could do so, by printing up t-shirts for sale on featuring the "public domain" image of that lawyer and a phrase "I Support Kiddie Molestors." Okay, not the best taste, but a shirt that I believe IS legally defensible. The laywer is cleared, the photographer is cleared, the text is cleared (in terms of the writer of said text is accounted for, from a legal standpoint. I'm trying to write a satirical T-shirt...) In this specific case, would the subject of the photo retain any rights, even to a public domain photo, and can they be infringed on? (I write here of the so-called personality rights that I have yet to see well addressed on Wikipedia. There's lots of "Oh, if Madonna doesn't like her image, she can call, and we'll think about getting a new one." No, what'll likely happen is her lawyers will make the call, and then you'll see those guys racing for a fair use defense so fast it won't even be funny. Well, except to me, it'll be hilarious, if only because I predicted just such a scenario right here on this page...  ;) Thanks for all your great work; you remain a Wiki-inspiration. Jenolen speak it! 10:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That a photo is in the public domain just means that the photo is free of any copyright protection. It doesn't mean that the photo's subject has necessarily waived any rights or given any license, or that trademark law, publicity rights, rights of privacy, or defamation law may not apply. Publicity/personality rights basically mean that people have the right to decide how their own likeness is commercially exploited. In the U.S., the First Amendment would of course protect a sufficiently creative or informative use of someone's likeness, but not if you're just selling merchandise (i.e., selling Madonna t-shirts because people will pay $$$ for images of Madonna).
As for your "kiddie molestors" example, even assuming no publicity rights were at issue, I don't think you would have a sound legal defense against a libel claim. Such a statement below that individual's picture would fail to be read as a satire about lawyers generally, but would instead appear to state a specific allegation of fact about that lawyer because it wouldn't be clear why else you would use that picture. This failure to target the satire in any meaningful fashion would probably mean that you acted with reckless disregard of the false statement it would be interpreted as making about him. See New York Times v. Sullivan, and actual malice. Postdlf 00:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion means more to me than a thousand Chowbok's. Thanks, and Merry merry, happy happy... Jenolen speak it! 02:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, just don't let me catch you making those t-shirts! Happy Chrismuhkahkwanzimaskuh to you as well... Postdlf 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
And looking back at what I wrote (very, very tired...), I probably should not have mentioned "satire." The hypothetical t-shirt is not really satire; what I was hoping for was a "clean" proof for Chowbok, et al, that the subject of a photograph, even one "released to the public domain" still IS an important part of the rights clearance equation, and a good argument FOR fair use. If you tried to get Eugene Volokh, or Madonna, or anyone to sign away their rights to an image of themselves, you'd probably have little luck, making fair use the only practical alternative for a vast majority of celebrity cases. (At least, this is how fair use has been practiced on the numerous TV shows and newscasts I've worked on over the years...) I've been told, repeatededly, "you not only have to "clear" the picture, you have to "clear" the person, too..." And without such clearance, you need a solid "fair use" claim. Is this way off base? Jenolen speak it! 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is a copyright doctrine (though there is a different kind of "fair use" applicable to trademark law), so all you're really left with to deal with the other kinds of rights and limits applicable to an image is free speech, which is itself not without limit or jurisdictional variability. I can't say it's insignificant to not have to worry about the photographer's copyright, but if the point of choosing "free" images over fair use ones is to make content reuse limited only by GFDL compliance, I can't say that images subject to publicity rights can be used in many contexts that fair use would not allow. Postdlf 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I just came across these hypotheticals, and for what it's worth, I agree with Postdlf on all counts. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image:Sentinelsomdc.png

I was just doing some work with the Sentinels of Magi article and took a closer look at this image. I think it needs to be yanked for the following:

  • The summary is wrong, both to source and artist. The panel does not exists in the Day of Judgment mini.
  • It's a photoshoped composite. The art is from 3 different panels in the story section of the Day of Justice Secret Files by John McCrea.
    • Zatanna and the Phantom Stranger are not major panel used (panel 1, pg 21)
    • Their images are drawn from 2 different panels at the beginning of the story (panels 2 & 3 of page 4 respectively.)
    • The major panel contains a word balloon (removed) and a blue background (changed to black, presumably to hide the cut-n-paste).

I can upload a correct version of the panel, though I think it's redundant for the English article.

However, the Hebrew version of the article uses the same composite, flipped w/ digital fx added. I think the image there is tagged as having been ported over from the English Wiki. If that's the case, that image should probably be yanked as well.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

But every now and again, I read something that just sounds wrong to me...

A Wikimedia board member wrote on this talk page You can't take an unfree photograph and use it for whatever you want, say, to put on your CD cover, or to crop and filter and use in a collage. But I seem to recall something about "transformative uses" of copyrighted material... which would seem to directly apply to collage-style works. Am I crazy? Or CAN you actually use some material in this way? I'm thinking of MATTEL INC. v. WALKING MOUNTAIN PRODUCTIONS [4] among others... Okay, really, I'm only thinking of that one. I'm not a lawyer. I just remember reading about this story...  :) Jenolen speak it! 11:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your question is; it's correct that you can't use someone else's copyrighted image "for whatever you want," but it's not correct that use in a collage could never qualify as fair use. The Mattel case seems to set forth the right legal standard. Postdlf 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What, you mean there wasn't a question there? :) I guess the question is, "Would you agree with this Wikimedia board member's view on things, particularly the part about using unfree photographs in collages?" I would say that, according to Mattel, you probably COULD fairly use unfree photos in just this manner, assuming that your collage is actually a transformative work....
But, this is why I never went to law school. And I don't mean to keep posting obtuse quasi-legal arguments on your talk page. I really do appreciate your contributions; they stand out as a voice of reason against what I see as a completely irrational fear of fairly using certain images. (The deletion of the Governor of Michigan's official state portrait from her page on grounds of "not being copyleft enough" is particularly irksome to me, for some reason.)
Anyhow, thanks again for taking the time to respond... hope your Xmas was X-tacular.
Jenolen speak it! 19:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New article

Hi! I started a stub on Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. I don't know if it is a case which is notable enough to warrant inclusion, but there are several links to the article and it is used in User:Thadius856/templates/badlink (scroll down to YouTube on the talk page), so I figured that I'd turn a red link into a blue one. --Oden 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

I noticed your vote on the category for deletion. I encourage you to read the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) and reconsider. The effects of growing up as a military brat have been extensively studied and investigated. This is not a case of "my parents were accountants" therefore I turned out X, it is a case of people who have grown up experiencing frequent moves, authoritarian family dynamics, a high degree of patriarchy, the absence of a parent, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit. These have had profound effects on military brats and has been heavily studied. Military culture is different from civilian culture, and growing up in that culture does have an effect on the individual. Finally, being a military brat is often more verifiable than many of the categories out there. EG Athiest, Agnostic, gay, etc. Also consider this, the fact that it was deleted BEFORE the article was made credible means that this can now be reviewed anew. Balloonman 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument for Wikipedia:Deletion review; unless the prior CFD is overturned through that process, the categories will stay deleted. Postdlf 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually proposing a different title now... that I think should float. Third Culture Kids is a broader category that has been studied, within that category, Military brats are the largest segment of Third Culture Kids. My proposal is to create a new category for TCKs and then have a subcategory for military brats. That way you alert people that we are NOT talking about some slang term, but rather a studied researched encyclopedic concept under a larger umbrella.Balloonman 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Album covers having to be refered to in album article

I was hoping perhaps you can take a look at something I posted at the talk page for WP:FU. I reference in my post a discussion earlier on the same page in which you and Geni (talk · contribs) debated about album covers. I feel your comments might be relevevant in this discussion as well. I appreciate your time. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah, woah, I NEVER meant any ill will. Sorry if I said anything wrong. I guess I was very wrong on this. I apologize and now will back away to creating pages again. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood; I was replying to someone else's comment there, not yours. I have pointed that out on the FU talk page. Postdlf 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

USGS images

Hi Postdlf, I've been wanting to ask you something for a couple weeks, after seeing these images that you uploaded. I need some advice on USGS images. We have {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}} and these images are in the public domain. As I understand, terraserver uses these images but then copyrights them or do they copyright their software interface but not the images - can you explain how this works to me? Really what I'm asking is, what is the best site to access PD USGS images? I was wondering about this so I can upload some as maps and plan views for articles, mostly because famous buildings, parks, and so on are well illustrate in this way imo. An example of one I have in mind is the Getty Center but there are plenty of buildings that have amazing plan views while drawings in plan are difficult to obtain. And of course, these views are photographs and have merits and qualities because of this that are lacking in drawings. While I'm here the photos you've shot are also very good in addition to those you've scavenged. Regards, DVD+ R/W 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As TerraServer-USA explains, the satellite images are public domain. The website's use of them can't give the site copyright over them anymore than we gain copyright by using them here, and I don't believe they are modified by TerraServer in a way that would change that. I'm also not aware of any claims to the contrary. TerraServer can of course post copyright notices all over its website until it's blue in the face, but it will only have copyright in what it actually created (i.e., the website itself). Postdlf 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the compliments about my photos.  : ) Postdlf 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, good news. Are there any resources for images outside of the US? DVD+ R/W 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)