User talk:SCEhardt/A4

Image:Grapevine_Snail.gif

Image:Grapevine_Snail.gif is the same as Image:Grapevine_Snail.jpg.

Thanks - I've updated the image to reflect that. -SCEhard T 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thanks for the notices on those images, I went through a did a major clean-up on them. Staxringold 12:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the listed images. I'm still concerned that the images in your gallery are not allowed on Wikipedia under the license you provided, but we can let that run out at PUI if you want. -SCEhard T 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll go deal with those now. Not sure about the fair use ones though. Staxringold 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found actually very useful fair uses for them, thank you again for such close attention to WP's image policies. Staxringold 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks excellent, both the licenses on the photos you took and the fair use of the others. Thanks for being so cooperative - I know that Wikipedia's image policies can be a pain sometimes. -SCEhard T 04:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sabers.gif

If you look on the image page, you will see that i have written "Author: Krivo". I think that this should be enough to verify its copyright, and it may now be appropriate to remove the Image copyright problem notice. You can decide for yourself. Vidgamez-yo 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Krivo? -SCEhard T 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTC Images

Hi do guess i don't quite get the guidlines yet but if a pic is on the net and the pages has no copyright isn't it up for grabs?

User:Albedo radii

In short - no. It is actually the opposite. Copyright law states that photos and other works are implied to be copyrighted unless otherwise noted. That means that unless a photographer specifically releases the rights to their work, it is by default 'all rights reserved'. There is more info at WP:COPY. If you have any other questions, just let me know. Thanks! -SCEhard T 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Greenlee.jpg

First image i've come across with no verifiale origin or exif info. That's why I add cite links to any image i'm not sure about. Nothing shows up in any search for the image.

This is the original source http://aspa-sfsu.org/events/greenlee.htm. If this is a problem I do have alternative images I can use. I think it just stood out because of the status I assigned it. I figured I'd repost this here for you. Basique 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, right clicking on the image brings up "Angela Davis photo" in is properties, i can't find any information on her so i'm going to replace it with an image I'm more sure about. Basique 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me about this. The main problem was that you had tagged the image {{PD-ineligible}}, which it is not. I see you're using a different photo in the article now, so is it OK if I go ahead and delete Image:Greenlee.jpg? Thanks! -SCEhard T 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, definately go ahead and delete greenlee.jpg. Thanks! Basique 12:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Butehouse.jpg

yes

p.s. like the Pink Floyd lyrics —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benson85 (talk • contribs) .

Cool. To avoid confusion in the future, consider using {{GFDL-self}}. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~ Happy editing! -SCEhard T 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

I added the source and license for Image:Sia.jpg. Thank you for the pointer! =D Jumping cheese 06:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -SCEhard T 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:12_FFw_Brehna_Sachsen-Anhalt_Germany.jpg

I must confess, I am a slight bit annoyed. Not about you, but about the sheer amount of different licenses. Maybe you can help me:

- I took the picture and post-worked it - I would like to allow anyone to use it on wikipedia - I have no objections against anyone saving it to his/her harddrive

- I would absolutely hate the fact of seeing it on a commercial page or in print without me beeing named as author.

So, what would be the appropriate license in this case?

Regards, Winnie-MD 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you are finding the image licenses annoying because you are trying to do something that isn't possible. Images with a restriction on commercial use are not allowed on Wikipedia.[1] The best solution I can think of for you is the {{GFDL}} license, which explicitly requires anyone who uses the picture to name you as an author as well as release the work they use the picture in under the same license. If you prefer, the {{cc-by-sa}} does basically the same thing with simpler wording. -SCEhard T 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Hi - In going through some 'no source' images I noticed that you have been tagging logos and coats of arms as 'no source' even though the copyright is clearly owned by the company or group in question. As I understand it, a specific URL is not needed when the copyright owner is known/obvious. Have you heard differently? -SCEhard T 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard, everything has to have a source URL. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be argumentative, but I'm positive that everything doesn't have to have a source URL (for example, a photo I took myself that only exists on the Internet at Wikipedia). Could you point me to where you read that all logos need to have a source URL (rather than just specifying who owns the logo)? Thanks! -SCEhard T 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the bottom of all of the Fair Use tags, eg {{logo}}: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what we're disagreeing on is the meaning of 'source' in this context. For example, if I wanted to upload a 1980's AT&T logo to comment on how it had changed over the years, I might have to download it from Logos-R-Us.com. However, this 3rd party would not own the logo nor any rights to it. I don't think they would need to be credited since the original source is still AT&T. I will admit, however, I'm no expert on copyright law. I'll research this some more and think about where to bring up the question in a more public place on Wikipedia (and of couse point you to that discussion if I start one). -SCEhard T 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hotdaybackyard.JPG

Please note that this edit doesn't make sense because that tag only applies to images used under a 'fair use' claim (not PD images). Thanks! -SCEhard T 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SCEhardt for notifying this thing, but may i know about the tag which can be used for PD and GFDL orphaned images. I am using the same tag for untagged images for very long. Is it fine? Please suggest me. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a PD or GFDL image should be deleted, list it at WP:IFD. -SCEhard T 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Tyrakis

Thanks for dealing with George's page. Now if you could just deal with his buddy in the same fashion, that would be terrific! Thx the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! -SCEhard T 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mc_ny.jpg

Hi,

Mc_ny.jpg, it's a digital picture of myself.

Please do not remove it.

Thank you.

Kedar

Thanks for adding a correct license and source! -SCEhard T 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for giving me that notification and talking to me like a person instead of just inserting some demeaning tag on my talk page. i fixed it. you were right, i did create it myself. --MateoP 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tina Dico promophoto.jpg

Thanks for the note about this promo image of Tina Dico.

I believe I've added the appropriate sourcing and copyright info; can you confirm that this image now meets Wiki-specs?

Thanks!

Jenolen 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks for taking care of it! -SCEhard T 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image Tagging Image:Mabel taliaferro.jpg

Hi,

Taliaferro's pic is a scan from a book.

Kedar

Does the book say who took the photo? If so, are you able to determine when they died? If not, please provide the name and author of the book and its copyright date. Thanks! -SCEhard T 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I believe that the author is John Kobal.

Kedar

The image page looks fine now. Thanks! -SCEhard T 04:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartHome and external links

Hi,

I recently added a link to an article about Smarthome on wikipedia.org. The article indicates in the link section an area called "Competitor Links". I added a link to the "Competitor Links" section, I then received a request not to add commercial links. I am not trying to create advertising on wikipedia, I am simply adding information to the existing article in an area where it is indicated. I am confused however as to why adding a link in the "Competitor Links" section was considered wrong.

I do appreciate all the work that goes into assembling a living information source such as this one, I am familiar with several contributors, as well as hoping to become a contributor myself. Your assistance in all of these matters is hugely appreciated. —This unsigned comment was added by Mother911 (talk • contribs) .

The links were removed for a couple of reasons:

External links (links to non-wikipedia websites) are only allowed in the External links section
The website you linked to seems to be a Smart Home distributor, not a competitor. It does not provide useful information about the Smart Home company, so I removed it from the External links section.

I'm glad you've created a user account and I look forward to seeing your Wikipedia contributions, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your company, which seems to have been the sole purpose of your IP edits: [2] Thanks! -SCEhard T 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the urge to not have linking as advertising, however since the links I added in X10 were external links to information about X10, and a link to a Smart Home competitor, I don't see why it would be incorrect. SmartHomeUSA does not sell ANY Smart Home corporate products. They are a seperate entity and a competitor. Mother911 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited the X10 article, but as with any article, you should discuss adding your link on the talk page if there is a dispute over it. -SCEhard T 14:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no problem with the link on the X10 information, just the smart home link. I don't know if there is a clear answer to this, but I certainly appreciate all the time and effort that has gone into this on your side of the coin. Most other situations I would have been simply told to RTFM and FO. Mother911 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My photos

Nandos.gif: i got from google images, delete that for all i care.

PalermoD.JPG: Hmm, thats my username, it wouldnt be a photo of myself...

PooNinja.jpg: Also a photo with its title also similar to the username of the profile its on. Its a photo of him, delete it if it will give you some jollies. —This unsigned comment was added by PalermoD (talk • contribs) .

I guess maybe I didn't do a good job of communicating the issue to you. I realize that Image:PalermoD.JPG and Image:PooNinja.jpg are of the users by the same name. What I am concerned about, especially for your photo, is who took the photo? If it was a professional photography agency then they most likely retain copyright which means you can't put it on Wikipedia. -SCEhard T 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RMoore.jpg

You just tagged the image as "no copyright info". I did that with a few others of the same uploader a few days ago, and he changed it to "PD" despite those pics being "Getty Images". Don't know if you are an admin, but if you could keep an eye on it or advice what to do next. Agathoclea 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an admin. Hopefully this user is just having trouble understanding our policies, so I have left them a note. Thanks for pointing this out! -SCEhard T 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a break another two pictures uploaded. Image:Dambuilders97.gif Image:Maniandprince.jpg Agathoclea 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! -SCEhard T 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildchild20s is uploading more images

Hey, I noticed that you gave this user a bit of advice about uploading images without suitable copyright tags. He's up to it again. Here they are:

(and maybe more, he's still doing it...)

Does persistant uploading against the Wikipedia policies constitute vandalism? I dunno. Anyway, just thought you'd like to know. Good luck! Budgiekiller 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See User talk:Scottfisher, for example. Currently blocked this user for 24 hrs. Thanks for the note! -SCEhard T 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see. Thanks for your quick response and actions. Keep up the good work! Budgiekiller 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

images

Got ur notice on these images:

Image:Basilica Minore del Santo Niño .jpg

Image:Minglanilla church.jpg

Image:Srp-highway01.jpg

Image:Taoist temple.jpg

Image:Skyline.gif

Image:University of San Carlos.jpg

Image:Cebu City Top.jpg

Image:San Miguel Brewery Mandaue City.JPG

Image:Cebu Business Park.jpg

Most images are from: http://www.ngkhai.net/cebuwiki/index.php?title=Metropolitan_Cebu A CebuWiki Website..

I've specified the sources for these images. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slyder (talk • contribs) .

Do you know what copyright CebuWiki is releasing those images under? I can't find that information on their website. Thanks -SCEhard T 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slyder:

Hi! Here's CebuWiki About Page:

Cebu Wikipedia About Page

"All the text in Cebuwiki, and most images and other content, is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content will remain freely distributable and reproducible."

Thanks for finding that! In the future, please remember it is very important that you tag any images from that website as {{GFDL}}. Some of the ones in this list were tagged {{NoRightsReserved}} which has a very different meaning. I have fixed all the ones from this list, but if you know of any others you should fix them right away. Thanks! -SCEhard T 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My links...

Hi, I never really added anything to wikipedia until today so it's still a little confusing for me. I don't see how the links I added were advertising since I'm not benefitting from people visiting them. They are all just fanlistings approved by thefanlistings.org (which has an application process and regulations). I don't have ads on the pages, it's just a site that lists all fans of the subject. I am listed on some of the band's official websites as well and thought it would be okay.

I've seen wikipedia pages that contain links to forums - forums that have ads - why is that allowed? Example: "Buffy The Vampie Slayer". I also spotted a fansite link on the "That 70's Show" page. Why are these allowed and mine are not?

Hmm... I don't even know how to work this comment thing, haha. Sorry if it turned out wrong!

Thanks for your time. xo Ashley

Ashley - Placing links to a website can be considered advertising even if there is no money involved. External links are supposed to provide further useful information on the topic at hand, and fanlistings generally don't fit into this category. I will not dispute that some articles may have external links that don't belong. Constant monitoring of external links is necessary (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam) otherwise every article would have pages and pages of external links because pretty much everyone with a website on a given topic would like to have a link on Wikipedia to increase traffic. -SCEhard T 17:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I just noticed other fansites and figured it was alright. I understand now. I still don't get this whole commenting thing though - it's not very user-friendly, and people can edit eachother's commments ^.^ - Ashley

Image:Baybarbie.jpg

Please add a source for this photo. Thanks! -SCEhard T 22:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I've moved it to Commons. -- Zanimum 13:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJBot

In regard to [3], I apologise. My bot also does general cleanup on articles it goes through. All articles it's gone through should have involved splog become spam blog as all article linked to splog. This edit, despite the fact it's in the user namespace, I see no problems with. Feel free to disagree. :P Computerjoe 's talk 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in regard to this one I couldn't agree more. my bot is still on a test run, so thank you for reporting this before I go to request status for the bot. I hope I haven't given you a bad impression of it or me. Computerjoe 's talk 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberton

OK... one image is not needed so it can be deleted. However, the other is available on the web (I have provided the source link) and was also purchased by myself from the museum mentioned. So is that all ok now then? Stephenjh 01:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! I have deleted the first image as you requested, and I have edited the second one to reflect the information you provided. In the future, please remember that images are copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. (See WP:IUP for more information.) Thanks for your great work on the SS Tiberton article! -SCEhard T 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

faster mustache

Hey,

Can you help me out and try to unlock Faster Mustache's page for editing? Faster Mustache Also, can you give me hints on how I can make it notable and all that stuff to prevent another Speedy Deletion.

Thanks, Roger3b 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an article on Faster Mustache could meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. However, if you would like to try again, I suggest that you create the article at User:Roger3b/Faster Mustache and make sure everything is the way you want it. It will not be deleted from this location, so you can take all the time you want. Then, when the article is ready, add it to the list at WP:AFC. Be sure to cite some sources such as news articles - the information in the article has to be verifiable by other editors. -SCEhard T 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandt Warsaw Ghetto.jpg

From the source of where I got this picture from, it stated that use is permitted for non-commercial use. The last time I check, Wikipedia is not a for-profit organization. So I personally do not see a problem in using the picture. Bourquie 15 Apr 2006, 4:55 UTC

Images restricted to noncommercial use are generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see {{noncommercial}} and Jimbo's message. -SCEhard T 05:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cu aerial.jpg

I've posted copyright information on the image page itself under the heading Copyright Information. Is that not good enough ? CCS is in charge of taking care of the Carleton's website and that copyright disclaimer applies to everything on the carleton.ca domain. sikander 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying the image lacks copyright information. The issue is that we can't use the image under a license that prohibits commercial use (see {{noncommercial}} and Jimbo's message). If you believe the image falls under a fair use claim, I suggest you change the license to {{Non-free fair use in}}. Otherwise the image will probably need to be deleted. -SCEhard T 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright warning

Your contribution would be greatly appericiated in this discussion. --Adamrush 13:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Replied at image page. -SCEhard T 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalism

You tend to tag for deletion my images in spite the existance of the source and copyright information as well as even license text provided. Please stop the marauding.--Nixer 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tpb.jpg is not tagged for deletion. It is tagged as 'possibly unfree' to facilitate discussion. If you have information to contribute to this discussion, please do so at WP:PUI. -SCEhard T 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image as well as 7 other images by the same author explisitely allowed by author to use under free license. The image pages contain full license text as well as links to the author's site. Anyone can prove the statement. Deleting obviously free-licensed images I consider as pure vandalism. Such peole as you should not be admins in Wikipedia because your actions make damage to the project.--Nixer 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images Marked With Black Box

Discussion at User_talk:Soccer-europe.com#Stop_uploading_the_black_box -SCEhard T 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of image tagging

This revert of my tagging an image "no source" [4] made me really surprised. I see no source mentioned. The name of the artist is not enough, it needs to be stated where the image is from - a book, a website, etc. Then we need to know the year of death of the artist, to know if it is PD... the uploader has labelled quite a few images "copyrightedfreeuse" that obviously were not, including El Greco paintings (died 1614). I retagged the image, with todays date. // Habj 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - not sure what I was thinking. I've retagged the image and commented on the image talk page. -SCEhard T 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging Image:100px-Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg

Hello, I am tagging the image Image:100px-Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg as {{GFDL-presumed}}</nowiki></code> because I honestly believe it is GFDL. It is obviously a derivative work of another GFDL image on Wikipedia, [[:Image:Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg]], and the uploader [[User:Alexzero77]] said so on his talk page. The uploader should tag it as <code><nowiki>{{GFDL-retouched}} instead, I don't know where he got the idea of to tag it as a screenshot. Thanks. 68.226.61.4 04:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I've tagged it GFDL because the GFDL license requires that all derivative works hold the same license. -SCEhard T 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EnergyPyramid.jpg

Umm...yea. Sorry about that. I was experminenting with stuff, go ahead and delete it. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks! Reader12 21:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! -SCEhard T 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Audition?

Hey SCEhardt! Do you use Adobe Audition for your recordings?

I'm look for someone to help Patrick, a new Spoken person, get his software set up to export to Ogg. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw his question at the project talk page but unfortunately I use Audacity and have no clue about how Adobe Audition works. However, thinking about this more, if it comes down to it he can save the file as wav and then use Audacity to convert from wav to ogg (I think that since wav is uncompressed, there won't be any additional loss of quality). Does this sound right to you? -SCEhard T 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Building Biology

(do not remove comments from talk pages)

My apologies. I meant to replace your comment after converting the Requested move to a {{capitalmove}} but was distracted. Best wishes, David Kernow 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :-) -SCEhard T 12:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

Moved to User talk:BTNH

WD-40

Hi,

I think your removal of my addition to the WD40 thread is out of order.

I do not have any solid evident that its stands for WarDept, but at the same no one seams to have any solid evident to suggest it stands for anyhting else...?

Im in the UK, and have several hobbies/interests that bring me into a large number of very knowlage circles of people, and have heard a large number of these people say it stands WarDept, not one that beleave it stands for water displacment. (most of them beleve the water displacment 'thing' is a myth that origaniated from america)

Also, i feel there many be baised reasoning here, becuase as im not loged in my 'username' is My IP address, which as im in halls of reidence on the university campus (studing enginering)is shared by many hundreds of other students. Some of which may not be so caring of wikipedia as i am.

Thanks, Daniel

Daniel, Thanks for your concern. I would first like to suggest that you create an account (or log in) as this does make it easier on Wikipedia to know who you're talking to. Regarding the naming of WD-40, there is information on the WD-40 website detailing how it was invented and named. It appears that the name did come from America, but not in the way you've heard. I suppose it could be claimed that the information on the WD-40 website is just a marketing gimmick, but that claim would require some very strong evidence. Also, I would like to point you to WP:NOR for an explanation of why your theory shouldn't be placed on the article page without sound evidence. Thanks -SCEhard T 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image copyright message to John Fader

Hi - You left a message on user:John Fader's talk page about an image he uploaded. He's unfortunately been missing since May 20 of last year so is perhaps at this point fairly unlikely to reply. Looking at the upload log, this image is one of several he uploaded on March 23, 2005 at least a couple of which he indicated he took (and is in a list of "stuff I did" on his user page). I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he took the one you're asking about as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds reasonable. Just add the tag {{GFDL-presumed}} to the image along with a note explaining why and remove the 'no source' tag. If there are other images of his with the same problem, you might want to go ahead and change the tag to GFDL-presumed before someone tags them 'no source.' Thanks! -SCEhard T 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

207.106.89.5 vandal

Hi, I noticed you blocked this user for vandalism before and as I see it, he is a persistent vandal. Well, on 8 May 2006, he recently vandalised more pages, shown here and here and here and here and here and here. That's six blatant vandalisms in one day. I'm quite frankly surprised he hasn't been blocked yet. I have warned him but can't really do anything else. Please stop him. Skinnyweed 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! You might get a faster response at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in the future. -SCEhard T 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Practical Joke

see User talk:Aponar Kestrel

Image:Pinguiculalaueana1web.jpg

Hi - According to the copyright notice currently on the source website, this image is licensed as {{noncommercial}}, not GFDL. Did the source website say it was licensed as GFDL when you uploaded it? Thanks -SCEhard T 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had received by email from Christian Dietz, the owner of the website, the authorisation to use the photos on his website

The text of his email of 4 August 2004 follows (The bolding of the text is by me):

Hi Georges,

Here is the link with the pictures, you can use for wikipedia (or anywhere you wish to use them). It contains all pictures you have used so far. So there is no problem. Deleting my Email with permission to all my pictures from my Homepage would be great.

http://www.utricularia.net/sonstiges/freie_Bilder.htm

Christian

Perhaps the copyright tag {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} would have been better than GFDL. But at the time of uploading in 2004 I was rather new to Wikipedia. I'll leave it up to you to decide about the right copyright tag. But, in any case, the photo is allowed and should not be deleted. JoJan 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've changed the tag to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} as you suggested since that is less restrictive than GFDL. -SCEhard T 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noncommercial

User_talk:Mtz206#Images

Audio upload

Hey, got a question for you: I tried, when I did the BOTAR recording, to title the audio file as specified by the Wikipedia guide. However, the canonicalization thing has me confused. I titled it "[ [ Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution.ogg ] ]" (without bracket spaces) which is what Wikipedia seems to want. But then, once uploaded, the file reads as "--Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution--", which is obviously nonstandard. What have I missed? Ooddiittyy 07:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - The brackets are Wiki code that create a link so that [[link]] becomes link when you save the page. Thus, when uploading a file, there is no reason to include the brackets in the file name (just name the file Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution.ogg). I think the software turned the brackets into dashes, thus the odd file name. If you decide to replace the file, just let me know and I can delete the old one. There's a lot more info at Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Examples. Hope this helps! -SCEhard T 10:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Thanks for reverting. Appreciated -- Samir धर्म 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! -SCEhard T 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Orpington Pond CG.jpg

Sorry about my mistake - it's a photo I took myself which I want to release under GDFL. I've tried to fix it by uploading it again - can you check it's okay now, please? CarolGray 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looks perfect now! -SCEhard T 19:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MabuiagIsland.jpg

Hi there.

This is a free for all image from a local site promoting teh area. Its freeforall because the author of the webpage promotes and encourages distribution of the image.

For your info Mabuiag Island is am island in teh torres strait, north Australia and needs tourism.

Feel free to contact the author to verify.

Peter

Peter - In order for the image to be used on Wikipedia, the author must also allow his image to be used anywhere, even in a modified state. Please see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for more information. It is up to you, the uploader, to get permission from the author. Please follow the instructions at the above page on how to acquire a release from the author. Thanks! -SCEhard T 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

audio

Another thing.

Why is audio in ogg format. The only application that I have that even reads ogg format is Adobe Audition and IM sure not everyone has audition.

Why cant they have mp3 or wav format??

cheers

--Phenss 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter - many people wonder this, and I must admit the situation is aggrivating because it makes Wikipedia's audio content less accessable. We can't have MP3 format because it is a copyrighted standard that isn't compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. Wikipedia:Media#Audio has more info on this. I don't think there is a legal problem with wav, but the files tend to be very large. It is fairly easy to install the OGG codec on your computer so that all your audio programs will be able to open OGG audio and video files. Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg) has info on installing the codec. Hope this helps! -SCEhard T 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pétanque

Those men are playing Pétanque :) --Marc Lacoste 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'd been trying to figure that out. -SCEhard T 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]