User talk:J Milburn/archive24
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Margaret Smith
I have added a new rationale for Margaretsmith.jpg. Please give me your comments. Pepso2 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Amazing Race
Dang it I should have thought of this. It's Canada Day here, so the earliest I'll be able to do anything will be this afternoon, and maybe not even then. I'll try giving your article a copyedit. Do you use IRC? Thanks, gENIUS101 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
image copyright
Thanks for informing me about the copyright requirements for my photo, I wasn't aware as I hadn't uploaded a photo before. I took the photo myself, so added the appropriate tags releasing rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltovivo (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Alarm (Raw album)
Why have the images been removed with comment? They are important to the article for demonstrating the difference between Country releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorsem (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Amazing Race
Just thought you should know: I've started work on Karl Moffat, but it's going slow. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, gENIUS101 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I ran out of sources (after an hour-ish of searching), so I switched to X Division. Thanks, gENIUS101 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's been nommed, but the Roadblock is to write a GA(I saw it on another contestant's page. Btw, most other candidates pages are empty.). Do you want it, or do you want me to give it a try? Thanks, gENIUS101 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- After you do the Detour, you have to do the Roadblock (all in the same round). I saw what it was while I was checking on other people's progress. Thanks, gENIUS101 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2.0
Thanks. I'll try to remember to fix that in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Have a fun weekend. I'm going to start working on veggie bacon just as soon as I'm done with bacon cheeseburger. Perhaps in the new year? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Scutellinia scutellata
Hello! Your submission of Scutellinia scutellata at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Killiondude (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good work. It checks out with more than enough characters. I just passed it on T:TDYK. Killiondude (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
deadstar
okay, i'm fine with it. i also don't really care, it's just an old album All strak(Talks page!) 22:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
tomas4191
how does 72through95rocketslogo.png add nothing to the page? it's part of history. many other sports teams articles have pictures of their previous logos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas4191 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Image for delection
Hey, i don't know why most of photo is list of delection. especially photo of princess bopha devi. most of photo is take in 1960 as she first dance. the phorography is killed in khmer rouge. what do you want? i not sure and not understand about photo uploading. can you know me something about that? i am so confused.Engsamnang (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Photo i upload
so i make a wrong license for thoes photo, so you said thoes photo is under all right resverse. so can i put the all right resverse license to these photo better?Engsamnang (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To be sure what people are supporting, I made a separate subsection. You may wish to move your comment if you were supporting the expansion of uploader as well as the ability for admins to grant it. –xenotalk 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Poll
I was actually just looking for the remaining contestants to vote. Would you mind removing yours? Sorry about that. Cheers, iMatthew talk at 20:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
request for article
Recently, we discussed NFCC and seemed to agree completely. Now, I have another request.
Please allow me access to Maria Belen Shapur or Maria Belen Chapur, which was deleted. In the AFD, I offered no opinion but did offer analytical advice. The result was delete and redirect instead of the commonly performed merge and redirect. I did not edit (or, if so, merely minor edits) the Shapur/Chapur article. However, I am a major editor for the article which the Chapur/Shapur article now redirects.
I would like to review the deleted article to see if there is any text that is suitable for the directed article that I do edit. Furthermore, there may be some good references. There is a problem that the deleted version may have been destroyed by those wanting delete (A problem in the article was that those favoring delete removed lots of text and those favoring retention added a lot of text, some of which is not encyclopedic). Perhaps the method would be to recreate the article, move it to my new sandbox, User:User F203/temporary sandbox for Maria B., then revert the article back to a redirect. If you do so, I remove the information from my sandbox immediately after review. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I refused this request for restoration on my talkpage, and would think it better if this had been discussed with me first. Not going to re-delete if it is userfied, but think F203 should have mentioned it as it is otherwise a case of asking the other parent. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- The end result is that two useful references have been salvaged. Those two reference (from reliable newspapers, not tabloids) have helped improve the other article. On the other hand, there was not "cut and paste" to make the people in favor of deletion mad. The other article remains focused on the subject matter and not Chapur.
- On a different matter, I am beginning to see that you are quite well versed in NFCC. This is also an issue that interests me. User F203 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- This episode suggests to me that you need to be clearer in your requests. You came to me to ask for a page so that you could review it, implying that you wanted simply to be able to see the article. I refused as this is not a reason for undeletion or userfication, and I only grant reasonable requests for userfication. Based on your request here, it seems you wanted the material to perform some merge or to extract the references. Had you said that to me, I would have done it without hesitation. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- On a different matter, I am beginning to see that you are quite well versed in NFCC. This is also an issue that interests me. User F203 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am done now. Are you going to delete something now? The drawbacks of delete is that now my edit count will show that I edited on deleted pages. This might imply that I am stupid and choose bad articles to edit. Of course, this is not a major issue. If you really want to delete User:User F203/temporary sandbox for Maria B., you may. Please don't delete my other sandbox which has just a few phrases that any reasonable person wouldn't know that it is about Chapur but is a depository of 2-3 references. User F203 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
User F203 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that a lot of images which you tagged as PUI and listed here were retagged as non-free and will probably be closed as keep shortly. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
deletion, in general
At the risk of sounding thick, why do we delete things in WP? More specifically, if the topic is important enough to redirect, why not blank the page and redirect rather than a delete and redirect? I can see the reason for deleting if the topic is so obscure that we want to tear the page out of the encyclopedia and burn it. What's the rationale for delete and redirect? User F203 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
self answered question: Maybe it's so any troublemakers who are trying to recreate the article have a harder time? Or maybe because, in theory, conservation is a good idea and a tiny bit of computer memory is freed up at the WP servers? User F203 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Images at KH list
Talk:List_of_Kingdom_Hearts_media#Images, your thoughts/objections? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Mass deletion of image uploads needed
All this users image uploads need to be deleted , all images are originally from a pdf file of the Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan, their website isn't under a free license.
Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Scutellinia scutellata
|
On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scutellinia scutellata, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Tintin characters
Before you yet again delete all the images, perhaps you'll think of contacting the owners of Tintin: the ones who actually hold the copyrights. After all, if anyone would object to their use then it is them.
(Yes, I want to start contributing to Wikipedia again, but I would appreciate a little flexibility.)
Cheers, --Marktreut (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of image of Dianne Kohler Barnard MP
The image in question is free for use, as specified by the party's press kit. Please do not delete again.--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well I have got the author personally uploading the image to Wikipedia Commons as free to use. That should be acceptable then? --Mulaudzi8 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
FFD closures
I'm going to try my hand at doing more of them, I think; I have a good understanding of WP:NFCC but don't have any strong views about liberally or conservatively it should be read, which means that I don't participate much at WP:FFD (least of all in really heated debates, which are usually over how liberally or conservativey the criteria should be read). Anyway, thanks for your thanks - it's nice to know that admin drudgery is appreciated. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Image
I find the hysteria about these images to be quite unnecessary and a little disturbing. This is a very low-resolution image that no news organization would ever use. Who, exactly, might be harmed, even with the wildest stretch of the imagination, by our use of it? That's a serious question, and I'd really appreciate an answer. Not a policy answer, not a bureaucratic answer, but a real one, the kind of answer that would be expected in a court of law. Who exactly might be harmed, and how? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've replied on the article talk page. Sorry, I shouldn't have started the discussion in two places. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Freddy Krueger images
I've replied on all three, also, the edit notice is old, I was planning on changing it today; the guidelines are actually about having good faith and not attacking, which I have greatly respected in this message in response to your message which was a minor violation of the guidelines ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- You obviously didn't do your homework, if you see
- You can see my previously mentioned "troll" and I got into a minor fight, he forever burned calling me "trollish" into the revision history, I merely did the edit notice for venting ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- "If I've attacked you, you've certainly attacked other editors, in labelling them "trolls"" recall? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can be an admin, I'm sure I can be, I actually went through this (just making sure) ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- How is the above discussion an "I win, you suck!" comment? I was letting you know information that keeps you up to date. I don't understand why you'd empty the category of it's media ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see who will be enjoying this snack
---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- You betcha! We're just one big, happy WikiFamily! Like I said previously to Bignole during our fight, I hate how personal editing gets. I think being editor friends leads to ganging up and not the best results for the WP. What is this MySpace? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see who will be enjoying this snack
Thanks for the heads-up, we all have off days. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so very much on advising me on this picture. i have now changed the license to {{Non-free television screenshot}} thanks once again. i guess since i took the screen shot, i thought it fell under self ownership....
((User;BBCNYC)) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)((User:BBCNYC))(talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)((User:BBCNYC))
Worldfocus_WNET.jpg
How Do I Create One For this File? And If I Do Will The Alert Be taken off?
((User;BBCNYC)) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)((user:BBCNYC))
Uploads
I added the images in an appropriate place in the appropriate article. The Amon Amarth one is in the "Members" section of the article, and added the General Grievous one in the Revenge of the Sith section. Marauder09 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright vs. Tradeark
I agree that the images certainly "belong" to the organizations, but they are also trademarks and NOT copyrighted, which is the basic interpretation of "free". That is not to say that other restrictions don't apply, but that within Wikipedia, for purposes of identification, their uses are unrestricted. Outside Wikipedia, uses are restricted and that is noted on the image page. If anyone is going to misuse any image, outside of Wikipedia, that isn't really our concern. Lastly, apparently anything I propose, Hammersoft will a) take personally and b) oppose. I would appreciate if you would be so kind as to propose a Mediation so we can avoid future problems. — BQZip01 — talk 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think this explains it better, but, in short, letters cannot be copyrighted. Trademarked, sure, but not copyrighted. — BQZip01 — talk 01:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:PD#Fonts: "Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States". This isn't a matter of convenience, but of law. Both the "E" and the "B" are part of larger typefaces and are simply excerpted from those. — BQZip01 — talk 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. Examples: Baltimore typeset Eagles typeset
- Pls just respond here. Going back and forth is a pain. — BQZip01 — talk 06:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:PD#Fonts: "Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States". This isn't a matter of convenience, but of law. Both the "E" and the "B" are part of larger typefaces and are simply excerpted from those. — BQZip01 — talk 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
- Despite the obvious artistic input, these logos are still "set[s] of letters...whose forms are related by repeating design elements...intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". Indeed, they are typefaces and thus, per the above, ineligible for copyright. "Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection.
So, you would say that this is uncopyrightable? J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- If this is a letter in a set of a font designed to be used as a letter, then, no, I don't think it is copyrightable, much as none of the above images are copyrightable. — BQZip01 — talk 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-free images on July 2009 Ürümqi riots
Thanks for stepping in with the images on this article. I started discussions on both images, at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Image and Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Another image, and I would appreciate your comments there if you have time. Obviously neither image is allowed by our guidelines, and in any other case I would not hesitate to remove them and delete them (since it's so obvious), but I have been so involved in this article already that it's probably better I let someone else do it; if I removed or deleted the images myself then there could be, at best, a lot of ANI drama from some disgruntled editor who does not understand WP policies, or, at worst, some of the thousands of people reading this article today might start believing that Wikipedia is controlled by some power-hungry admin abusing his power (me).
Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the uploader (not of the image you removed, but of a different one) is trying to link to an external copy of his copyvio image; see here. He doesn't know how to format images properly so it doesn't display (this must be the first time that an editor's refusal to read the WP tutorial has actually worked out in my favor!), but the external link is still there—he seems to think that way he can get around the rules and keep his image linked even after it's deleted from WP. I have removed the link once or twice already, and he keeps restoring it. I can always report him at AN3 (although, to be honest, that's a noticeboard I have little faith in anymore) if he keeps reverting people other than just me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- In terms of the other image (not the one mentioned directly above, but the other one, see my response on the article's talk page. Perhaps a collage would work better, but either way, CCTV's coverage of this event differs significantly from previous such occurrences, and as China's primary television station and purveyor of news, that is a very notable fact. The image is about CCTV's coverage, not just a way to illustrate the article (though, like I said, perhaps a collage or some other image would better increase the readers' understanding of this significance - I'm completely open for changing/trading the image). Otebig (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
J Milburn, I'm about to be away from the computer for a few hours, but just so you know... I am getting more and more concerned about File:Rebiya-use-old-fake-photo.jpg, as the editor is starting to add it to other articles (I guess now that he realizes he's fighting a losing battle at the main one). I'm starting to think that, because of the controversial nature and the number of people paying attention to this now, it might be necessary to delete the image faster than normal, or to block the editor (he hasn't yet technically violated 3RR so AN3 might not be helpful). The only good news for now is that he doesn't know how to add images properly, so so far all he can do is add a URL. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rjanag is indeed getting very concerned about that image, which showed two valid URLs, which will expose Rebiya Kadeer's false justification for the massacre in Urumuqi. Specifically, Kadeer used the photo to prove that "Chinese deployed army and military into the scene" and "they actually beat" the demonstrators. Rjanag tried to feed false information and tried to suppress the image, the use of which clearly falls under the fair-use doctrine. See 17 U.S.C. S 106. ChinaHistorian (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
: 6 July 2009
- News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have added a Proposal for Deletion and a Speedy Delete template to this article. Each time the template is deleted without any discussion. I understand your removal of the Speedy Delete, I was just trying to initiate a discussion/consensus, which is impossible if the editor/author keeps deleting the template. Thanks MrMarmite (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for advice. Am trying to do so now. Seem to be doing something wrong though :( cheers MrMarmite (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Memorial image
Could you please ask that the Jackson image be deleted because of invalid fair use (i.e. images for deletion), rather than as an orphan? It is only an orphan because you keep removing it, so it's somewhat unfair to use that as a reason to delete it. I'd be interested in seeing whether others agree about the fair-use issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you direct me to which part of the fair-use policy it violates? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
RE:Fair-use rationale
I have added the fair-use rationale as requested. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Archives
As a matter of fact, I signed up with MiszaBot to archive today, but it might take a little while. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you wait and not take any images off the article until it is decided which images should be kept? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#Adam_Wilson_images Thanks. Candyo32 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I object your accusation that I am threatening you and I ask that you to retract it. As for what they are adding, I inlucded a link in the edit summary to the community discussion here. - Epson291 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe I am threatening you I have no interest to carry on this discussion with you through here. - Epson291 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will reiterate, I will not be carrying on this discussion through here on your talk page, I have already responded to the FFD section. - Epson291 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas states that in the template that if there are two portrayers, if an image is avaiable then to use both images of actors. I don't understand why having this is such a problem.Candyo32 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will reiterate, I will not be carrying on this discussion through here on your talk page, I have already responded to the FFD section. - Epson291 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe I am threatening you I have no interest to carry on this discussion with you through here. - Epson291 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I object your accusation that I am threatening you and I ask that you to retract it. As for what they are adding, I inlucded a link in the edit summary to the community discussion here. - Epson291 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Drugstore Artwork+photos
Dear J Milburn I am the founding member of band Drugstore. Here are a few notes to clarify some of the recent uploads.
I have written permission from photographer Andy Willsher that band is allowed to use the following pictures, for any purposes, public or promotional. (just not sure if I need to add his name to the picture, any help welcome)- PICTURES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drugstore_band_1.jpg File:Drugstore isabel monteiro.jpg File:Drugstore.jpg File:Isabel monteiro drugstore.jpg
I'm tracking down original protographer for the following pictures, so will remove from page, until correct source is established. PICTURES: File:Daron Robinson & Mike Chilynski.jpg File:Drugstore band Daron Robinson 2.jpg Drugstore_band_Drummer_Mike_Chylinski.jpg
The photographer, Lex Gatineau, has also given the band full permission to use her material for public and promotional purposes(Lex is a member of drugstore's fan club), PICTURE: File:Isabel monteiro drugstore d.jpg
All the artwork from every drugstore release was created by myself, but there is no need to credit, as it is already fairly visible in every single/album we ever released.PICTURES: File:Mondo2.jpg File:Drugstore-Starcrossed.jpg File:Alive.jpg Lovelyshopper (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
matiastellez.jpg
Hi, I have permission from the author, he will send an email asap confirming that. Can we not delete it in the meantime?Bergenblogger (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
hello
hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.57.146 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (File:Vinten Logo.jpg)
Hi you've contacted me on my talk page about the logo. This is my first article on Wiki so your help is really appreciated! I've copied the logo from the web where it is widely available and recently added a rational for use [which I hope is ok?]. Is the problem that the logo is not attached to a published article and if so do I have to remove it until the article that I'm creating on Vinten is finished? Thanks Somersall (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
List of The Tribe characters
Hi. You have removed all the pictures from the list of The Tribe characters. Are there no pictures allowed on characters lists? One of the trademark of The Tribe was the costumes and make-up of all the different characters. What's the proper way to depict some of the specific "fashion" on the show? Thanks for your help. ErisDysnomia (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me figure out how to handle the problem this image presents. Obviously, I thought that posting at Talk:Kasuga Maru was compliant with fair use .... Now I'm better informed because you invested a little bit of time. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Lorenzetti
Hi JMilburn, is the threat to delete this image really necessary? -
given that it is it is from the middle ages and its in pd I don't understand this...I understand the tag says it needs a source - but for what reason? WP:UCS says let it be...The tagger seems hysterical, please calm him down, thanks...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Xbox Console pic
Hi. I have seen your message on my talk, about File:Xbox Console.jpg. The image is from that link (the link is in the description page), and I edited it using Microsoft Paint. I made the image smaller, and I made the console to cover the whole pic. What shall I do now? (NOTICE: Please reply me on my talk) --AimalCool (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- So what is the standard copyright of that image? (please always reply on my talk) --AimalCool (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Re. your edit on NFC, you might like to comment at Talk:Western_painting#Number_of_images. Ty 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Then how come it is a featured picture?? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, please do use the deletion template and I will replace the image. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Then how come it is a featured picture?? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, please do use the deletion template and I will replace the image. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Several Images up for deletion
Hi,
I have noticed that you have placed several images, on some of the pages I am working on, up for deletion. Sorry that I did not provide sufficient detail about the right to use these images, I am currently working for the person running these websites, Andrew Davis, of which these images have been taken from. The wikipedia pages are about these websites, as well as a biographical page of Andrew Davis.
The files in question are:
July 9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logotwks.png
July 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myspaceandrew-006631-199x300.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twkssnippet.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew-227x230.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James172x230.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rickie-153x229.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melvin-172x230.jpg
You can contact Andrew regarding this matter on andrew@twks.co.uk
If you need more proof of ownership, please respond in how I could show this.
Many Thanks
17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cass81 (talk • contribs)
Status indicator
How do you get that status indicator on your talk page? I'd like it for mine. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 15:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- And, also sadly, it doesn't work on IE (which I have). - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've actually got it to work in IE 8 on Windows Vista, but how do you show it on your talk page, etc. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 19:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't you check Wiki users operating time record ??
Until now I was working on here ... fixed the "fair use", and inserted a image to a proper place.
But you are not staying for a moment, and indicated to me a little while ago again about "fair use" of a image uploaded.
Don't you check recorded time??
Why are you short-tempered like this ??
Take it easy please.
-- Kookyunii (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Konkuk University Logo images
Are'n you watching the pages of various universities???
This logo "KonKukUniv Logo2.jpg" is needed at Konkuk University page too, and it is the equivalent of the images for the other univ. pages such as "Harvard University Logo.PNG" to Harvard University, "Yale logo.png" to Yale University, "Princeton U logotype.png" to Princeton University, "UniCamLogo.png" to University of Cambridge, etc.
Confirm them what I suggested.
Please be careful before you indicates "deletion, remove" to Wiki users.
You have to look around the various pages that have similar theme before you point out.
-- Kookyunii (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re: Your reply on my talk page
- I know all of what you are talking about.
- On the other hand, I want to ask you for just one.
- Please answer me.
- * Can you make clear the difference between "PrincetonShield.png" and "Princeton U logotype.png" at Princeton University ????
- * Can you make clear the difference between "Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg" and "Harvard University Logo.PNG" at Harvard University ????
- Re: Your reply on my talk page
- No it's really in same theme.
- I think that the difference between "KonKukUniv Logo1.jpg" and "KonKukUniv Logo2.jpg" at Konkuk University, is equal to the difference between "PrincetonShield.png" and "Princeton U logotype.png" at Princeton University, is equal to the difference between "Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg" and "Harvard University Logo.PNG" at Harvard University.
- How do you think about this ???
- It is the necessity of "KonKukUniv Logo2.jpg" existence.
- Re: Your reply on my talk page
- You're misunderstanding. I don't want to remove all those logos.
- My wish is that the all logos is remained, stayed without any changes, including "KonKukUniv Logo2.jpg".
- OK?? I hope that you let all of them stay without any changes.
- I beg you will manage it all right please.
Raman Chakayar images
The images I uploaded in [[ramanchakyar] are my own. How I should specify this to avoid deletion.
Fair use rationale for File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg
![](/wiki/User_talk:Sean.hoyland#"Fair_use_rationale_for_File:Keren_Hayesod_poster_1946.jpg")
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sean.hoyland - talk 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Undoing another admin's action once is not wheelwarring. You have a right to undue my actions, and I'll not accuse you of wheelwarring - please treat others with the same expect and good faith as you want to be treated yourself. FYI, I have contacted Cavalry some time ago with regards to that issue. Since his argument is that FUR was invalid, and most editors who commented there argued that it is quite valid, this seems to me like a good case to look up to community. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have been more clear on his talk page: most of the good rationales are presented in the IfD discussion, and should be summarized and copied to the image page. Maybe I should have waited longer for his reply indeed. If you think that the image should be deleted, please do so (and post a comment at IfD), as I told you, you have full right to do so. I really don't see why we should fuss that much about it :) PS. I don't intend to undelete the image again if it is deleted by another admin. But I consider it extremely useful and informative and I wanted to make it clear by undeleting it in my capacity as an admin. PPS. If the discussion was reopened, we could work on a better FURationale. As it is, I am not sure where this can be done (as the image is likely to be deleted again :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Let me first state that I don't think the image belongs in ALL of the articles it was used in. Why is it useful/educational/informative? (1) There are very few images showing German-Soviet collaboration, even fewer in the context of their joint invasion of Poland in 1939 (2) I don't consider the argument that something can be described good enough to refute the need for illustration; articles should be illustrated with best images possible. In fact, most people don't realize that German Nazis and Soviets were good allies before 1941, an image showing uniformed soldiers cooperating is very useful for showing them the historical reality. I'd also point you the the well written comments of Vrecumba in the IfD. Bottom line, the Nazi-Soviet cooperation in 1939 and in particular in the military invasion of Poland in September 1939 (an event that started WWII for deity's sake!) deserves an image. (3) Some editors raised (uncommented upon and unobjected to) points that the Die Deutsche Wochenschau may in fact be PD. This is a line of argumentation that should be allowed to develop. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding the free images. If the fair use image would be replaced with the free ones, I see no reason why it shouldn't be deleted. I agree that the free images seem to be a sufficient replacement (although I'd like to hear an answer to Talk:Die Deutsche Wochenschau). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Replaced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
OTRS
Have you considered helping out at OTRS? I think you'd be a great asset (not to mention the fact that you'd be able to look up OTRS tickets for yourself). You can apply at m:OTRS/volunteering. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-free image
You just wrote a message on my page saying my image was being deleted - edit summary "Notification: Deletion". This is completely inappropriate before you have given me an opportunity to provide a fair use rationale. I'm not a "new" user, but I do not normally upload fair use images so in that respects I am. Please go away and read WP:BITE. Thanks. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes of course I'm serious. The first thing I saw was the edit summary, not the message (as I loked at the diffs). Reading through the template that you posted, the language used there was appropriate - it first says, "please add a rationale" and then says "if you don't it will be deleted". What I object to was the edit summary that accompanied it - "notification deletion" which was firstly inaccurate - the file hadn't been deleted, nor had it been nominated for deletion - and secondly it wasn't consistent with "dont bite the newcomers" - as I said before, the first message should be "please add a rationale" and the second should be "if not, it will be deleted". I suggest a better edit summary would have been "Missing rationale". AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I really wish you would have removed the images instead of deleting the entire section. That was about 4 hours of work there. What I was trying to do is have a list setup to know what images have been uploaded and what haven't and which were PNG (the new standard for images on Wikipedia) and which weren't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the images. It isn't as neat as I would have liked it, but I guess it will do. You can look at it on the same linked page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Desolate North GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Desolate North for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad it went well. Most of my reviews I believe go well for the editors, but every once in a while I may get criticism for not making all of the changes myself or for threatening to delist the article. I do my best to ensure that articles adhere to the criteria, and hopefully comments/edits I make to the articles further improve them (even if they may not necessarily be a GA requirement). Good work getting to the issues so quickly. Let me know if you want me to watchlist the image at Commons. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jacare
The film Jacare is now in the public domain. Its copyright was never renewed. You can verify this fact here: [1]. I will change the tag to free image. Schmausschmaus (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have found and added the proper tag.Schmausschmaus (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
File:WFTDA_regionsjune200091.jpg Please advise!
You have flagged my image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wftda_regionsjune20091.jpg for deletion. Copy of your explanation: Source website is all rights reserved, not CC.
I would love some help on how to CORRECTLY license this and other images through our organization. It is my understanding that our trademark is included (via our logo) on each of the images that the organization (a collectively managed group that creates images and content allowed use by all member leagues.)
Specifically, I am the Wikipedia Manager for the Marketing/PR team for the Women's Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA). http://www.wftda.com/
I am and will continue to update our our Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Flat_Track_Derby_Association
and would like to include a few graphics that are relevant to and illustrate the encyclopedic understanding of our organization. Our images are trademarked, but not copyrighted, per se.
An example is the afroementioned thumbnail I tried to upload which can be found on the organization's website: http://www.wftda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/wftda_regionsjune20091.jpg
It is a map of how our organization is seperated into regions and I'd like to include a small graphic in that section on the Wiki page.
Can you please advise as to what type of licensing this would fall under and what I should choose for the image type in the Wiki uploader? This would also help me in future updates. I have been reading the Wiki Image and copyright guidelines for hours now but can't seem to make sense of it, as this is new for me. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for you time. The Terminatrix Tallahassee RollerGirls WFTDA Wikipedia Manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTerminatrix (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to add some content about "Obatma" to the article, forgot to do it last night, feel free to delete the image now, seems pretty uncontroversial ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
More advice please
Thanks, J.
Regarding the Wikipedia information about Conflict of Interest COI: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia."
My declaration of intent, Regarding WFTDA Wikpedia:
My interest in collaboratly editing the WFTDA Wikipedia is purely to add to an informational site about the organization based on historical fact. I contribute to this page on a regular basis to update member leagues, rankings, tournaments and other factual information from a neutral point of view. In addition, I may occasionally contribute graphics that are only used to enhance the understanding of some of this information. My updates are designed to chronicle the organization in an encyclopedic and historic way.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheTerminatrix" —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTerminatrix (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (TheTerminatrix (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
Raman Chakyar Images
Thanks J,
ramanchakyar image deletion : The URL over the image is the homepage of the article and myself owns the site. Both the image and the original website Homepage of Raman Chakyar owns by me Prashanth
If I should not keep the URL over the image in wikipedia then I have no problem in removing them.
Pprashh (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jim Shapiro dab
Ty. Ty 08:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Does the ticket verify the image is PD? I assumed it does, but your reply on the PUI discussion puzzled me. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite; there are a couple of issues with it. I have replied to the email and asked for clarification, and tagged the image as {{OTRS received}}. I would have used the tag {{permissionOTRS}} (and closed the PUI) if it was fully resolved. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Joining OTRS
I've certainly considered it, but, and this may sound stupid- I get the impression I may struggle using the software. Is it difficult? J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, not at all. It's a little tricky to get to know, but it's really quite straightforward. There's a demo system at http://www.otrs.org/demo/. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy help
Hi. You post me a message for a speedy deletion of the Grece 1ere Guerre balkanique.png file in use to the 1st Balkan War article. This file is a careful rework by me of the Grèce 1ere Guerre balkanique.png map created by the user O Kolymbitès. I reworked the map make it more historically accurate and about the accuracy of my rework there are no complains by the users that in the past months co-edited the article. So I consider it worth the try. Anyway now I am not sure what to do about. Do I have to mention that in the copyright tag or I have to contact the user O Kolymbitès for a permission of my map-editing? Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. Hope now to be OK, but please take a look [2]. If you don't have any objections in the meanwhile I will remove the deletion notice tomorrow. Thanks again for your help, --Factuarius (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind help. I offer you a seat in the Monastery Of The Kind Administrators, enjoy the view! --Factuarius (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Tintin characters
Can we compromise? I would like some of the images to stay. "Tintin's Double", for example. This is a character who does not appear in the regular edition that appears in the shops so would be an interest to Tintin fans and researchers. If wikipedia is not there to help the spread of information then what is it for?
Also, the illustration under "R.W. Trickler", sub-heading "Cameos in other adventures?", is helpful because it makes the argument that he makes a cameo in "The Claculus Affair" more forceful.
If these arguments are not good enough for you then will you please specify what will make the case. Imagine yourself as a lawyer in court giving opposing council advice on how to make their case where all else has failed. Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- In which case kindly go to the entries on Barack Obama and Winston Churchill and remove every image apart from the main photos at the top. By the way you appear to reason things just one image per article is enough.--Marktreut (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You want to keep the number of imges per article to a minimum don't you? So taking them all out of the articles devoted to two great men would be a great way of making your point, would it not?--Marktreut (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi JM, was wondering if you're planning on passing this article through GAN. I think it's pretty close already, and would like to add it to the list of fungal GAs, I think it just needs some polishing and maybe another pass through the literature databases to see if any info was missed. If you're not interested or too busy, I'll glady do it (I'll need the points for the next round!). Sasata (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Balhaf-Bir_Ali.jpg
Though I couldn't clear your explanation, you can delete that photo (File:Balhaf-Bir_Ali.jpg). I just would like your advice where to collect such maps rather than Google Earth or Google Maps?--Email4mobile (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Raman Chakayar Image
Thanks J,
Since you didn't replied anything back i have removed the image links from the article. You can very well delete them. ramanchakyar
Pprashh (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have now added a fair use rational for this picture. I hope it is sufficient. Nicosia1 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please could you review this picture again and update (Nicosia1 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC))
Summary: This month, we bring exciting news about our Wikimedia Foundation Grant, as well as news on our chapter Initiatives (get involved!) and our opt-out of Phorm. We also talk about Business Cards, a recent interview of our Secretary for use in university courses and Wikimania 2013 - which seems a long way off! We also include our regular features of chapter activities from around the globe, press coverage, and meetups!
In this month's newsletter:
- Wikimedia Foundation Grant
- Chapter Initiatives
- Phorm
- Business Cards
- Wikimania 2013
- Wikipedia in universities
- Other Chapters' Activities
- Press Coverage
- Meet-ups
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Boxing News
Hi, you have asked me to stop using the latest cover on the Boxing News wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_News). We do not have scanned copies of the old covers so your suggestion to use those is not practical. We put the new cover on every week, so wiki users can keep track of how the magazine is changing and progressing and also how the boxing world is changing. I should also note that we have been doing this for over a year with no problem. Would you please reconsider your stance as I do not see what harm it does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbflex (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. I will term it with the date rather than 'latest issue'. These images are free to use by the way. I write for Boxing News and they say we can have them for free for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbflex (talk • contribs) 09:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The photo was taken by a friend of mine, and I uploaded under CC with full permission. --Shamilton (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
My Sandbox2/West Virginia MetroNews
I added the image as it was going to be, pretty much instantly, moved to mainspace. Within about 10 minutes of your removal, the page was transfered to mainspace at West Virginia MetroNews. It was out of place for a couple, but it was quickly moved to mainspace. No worries, just lots of information to add before I could get the page off to mainspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem :) Glad it all got worked out :) Take Care and Have a Good Thursday...NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Creative Commons
Sorry about causing you all the work, I really couldn't see any difference from the Geograph site. i have probably uploaded 30 or so photos in the last few days, but I have no Idea how to go back and fix them.--Kudpung (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Girlfriends
The image of the cast holding a cake symbolizes how far they made it in the series. Now I'm only assuming there was nothing wrong with the licenses of the image since it didn't have a correct reason of why it was deleted other than "I fail to see why an image of the actresses with cake is required". If there was an incorrect copyright of the image, then I would like to be instructed step by step on what should I upload and what not. And if this image could be uploaded into the article again. Ceddy 06 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Tommy Thompson debate.jpg
The article does mention that he was sick. Please be more careful. All images you nominated are significant to their respective articles, debates are important and so is the participation. Most of the articles these images are included in are GA's, and therefore passed inspection by those reviewing the articles. So this is not simply my opinion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Test file
Just a note to say thanks for deleting my test file File:DSC00488 Test File.JPG. I appreciate that doing tests in mainspace is, er, far from ideal, but I couldn't think of any other way of doing it and it wouldn't let me upload it into my userspace or a sandbox! Thanks anyway. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandilism to Model Farms High, Oakhill college, and the willows, Queensland
I am very annoyed that our are reverting my pages claiming they are vandilism when in my opinion they are not. I believe his should be treated as a content dispuite. Please reply on my talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acres100 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup participates in the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew talk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Now you have
Just for the lulz :)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - responding to your revert and request. While there may be a problem on Wk of overuse of non-free media, I don't see that that is the case in this article which discusses all those books. The dust jackets are only being used one other time in articles limited to that particular book - such as Letters & BoLT 1. Using them a second time in an article about all those books as an author's canon should not be construed as overuse.Tttom1 (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- But, it is viewed that way here. The various articles about those books is the appropriate host for those images, not this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The original critique point was overuse - its not overuse (2 uses could hardly be so construed) - and it adds as much understanding to the topic as it does in the article of a single book as it is used in primarily the same context. The books are not 'just mentioned' in Me canon - the article is about their interrelation and mutual revisions etc. As the original criticism is not relevant and the second is fairly answered I think the images should be restored since they 'improve the article significantly' because they are relevant to topic and they make it look nicer - which a primary purpose of images.Tttom1 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
File:San Bernardino Logo.jpg
Why cant I use File:San Bernardino Logo.jpg for the San Bernardino City template? House1090 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we have a pretty major problem with this page, in that it is transcluding the whole of a list, including its non-free content. Regardless of the merits of transcluding the whole list, this use of non-free content outside of the article space is not acceptable- would it be possible to amend the template so that it does not show the non-free images? J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Done - Inclusion tags are cool:
- <onlyinclude>portion of page</onlyinclude> transcludes only the portion of the page between the tags, and no other part of the page.
- <includeonly>portion of page</includeonly> hides a portion of the page itself, but displays that portion when the page is transcluded (that is, only when the page is transcluded).
- <noinclude>portion of page</noinclude> disallows a portion of the page from being transcluded. It shows up on the page itself, but it won't be displayed in transclusions.
- For each of the above, "portion of page" can be as much or as little of the page as you want. Whatever is between the tags.
- The includeonly and noinclude tags can be nested within includeonly tags.
- Of course, none of this will make any sense unless you know what "transclusion" is. ;)
The Transhumanist 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- So you've gone through the articles and added noinclude around each of the non-free images? Or have I misunderstood? J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, I thought you were referring to today's entry only. I fixed that. Sorry for the confusion. Good luck with the rest. The Transhumanist 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- All you need to do is join the department, and edit one list per day, so the images don't show up on the template. (Tomorrow is almost here!) In case you have an emergency, you should do a few days in advance. That approach is not much different than the preparation of the subpages for the WP:POTD department. Or you could prepare subpages, like in POTD - I did that for a few months, until someone was willing to take over for me. Or you could form a team, and change all the lists for the upcoming year. I did that for the WP:TOTD project - the team created enough tips to display for a whole year. Have fun! The Transhumanist 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, even though I would like to jump in on another big clean up job, I don't have the time. I'm coordinating a very big WikiProject, and I can barely keep up with that. I would suggest that you nominate the template for deletion. That will catch the attention of everyone who wants to keep it. The Transhumanist 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Taking another look, the only place it transcludes to is here: Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (TFL), which is a version of the main page. The main page includes copies of non-free content, so I don't see this as a problem. As long as the template isn't transcluded anywhere else, and since it hasn't been transcluded anywhere else since it was created, there's really nothing to worry about. The Transhumanist 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then nuke it. The Transhumanist 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Claudia Zacchara 2.jpg
Hey there, File:Claudia Zacchara 2.jpg is used in Claudia Zacchara to illustrate the subject of the article; the other editor was making it a two-shot for some reason, which is perhaps why you thought it was decorative like the other one she uploaded, File:Sonny and Carly Corinthos.jpg. Can you withdraw this ifd? Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am so sorry, you are correct, I didn't realize she had swapped the infobox image.— TAnthonyTalk 23:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Madonna22.jpg
I just read what you posted in my talks and I understand now why those other images R OK to be there, but i was wondering could I perhaps upload this image to illustrate further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond_Ambition_World_Tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I think it would contribute to commentary portion of the article, but if you say no then I wont post it. Imma be honest with you, im a big madonna fan and I think that image would add more visual fee to the article but like I said if you say No its no. Also next time I wanna upload an image would you mind going over it to see if it meets those criterias or doesnt?? I would really appreciate it. Thnx So the whole "Visual feel" doesnta dd for anything means I cant post the pic on the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw
Please withdraw your nominations. I am trying to participate in the dramaout but you are making that very difficult. All images have been given a valid rationale. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Madonna rain 199.jpg
Hey I uploaded a new image its Madonna rain 199.jpg, maybe you could check it over and see if it meets the criteria so if it doesnt i can remove it right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletions
Could you please delete File:Capnmcains.JPG and File:Obamaos.JPG. They were for Obama O's and Cap'n McCain's but I have found a better photo. Thank you • S • C • A • R • C • E • 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Italian coat of arms
If you checked my license subpage, you would read the authorization letter I received from those site's member (by the way, they are used since ages also in the Italian wikipedia, also without any licensing problem). So please don't remove them. If you can teach me which correct license to use, I would be glad. Thanks and good work. --Attilios (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XXV
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grece_1ere_Guerre_balkanique.png){kind=link}
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC).
Toy image copyrights
Sorry, disregard. Moving to the commons talk page.--Flash176 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, your first link actually explains it to me. Thanks for the heads up about the disambig link, too. :)--Flash176 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Re File permission problem with File:Woodenware rolling pin Chesham Museum.jpg / File:Chemist shop old photo Chesham Museum.jpg
Hi J Milburn,
Thanks for your advice re the above. I have sent a copy of the requisite emails from the copyright owner to permmissions to use these images as requested. Is there anything else I need to add to the summary section of the images to ensure it is not deleted? Tmol42 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have actioned with a pending tag will remove warning tags in due course, CheersTmol42 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey I uploaded this file, wold you mind checking it out to see if it follows the non-free criteria. Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Gotcha!! I'll remove it rite away.
I am getting messages from you about not having a copyright notice on a photo of mine but I could not find a way to set the copyright. So I uploaded the file again and added the recommended creative commons notice, but it is still complaining. Where do I go to fix the problem? Why does the software let me upload a photo without a licence in the first place? --Kerry (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded the photo again under the same name with a creative commons licence, so why do I need to do anything at all? And where does the text go anyway and what does the text mean? --Kerry (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey its me again, would you mind checking this file and seeing if it meets teh criteria, I wanan do it before i upload it to the article. Thnx again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah I know, but its actually for the DVD release section of the article, which is missing the illustration. Ooh Gotcha once again!
Hey its me..again! I wanted to upload that image into the blond ambition world tour article. The image is that of a promotional poster and I juss wanted toa sk you if it would be OK for me to post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Ok so what ur saying is that its OK if i post it but it would be up to the editors if they remove it or not?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
hey
I have now implanted the image to an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eight_Gate_Damascus.PNG
How do I make that warning sign disappear? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Image permission Berlinale Photo 25
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Berlinale_Photo25.jpg
"A file with this name was previously uploaded, but has been deleted."
You should consider whether it is appropriate to upload this file. The deletion log for this file name is provided below: Media file with improper license"
Dear J Milburn, the copyright holder for this file is, as I have mentioned, Nikolai Alekseev. Via e-mail, e has given me the authorization to use this file here on Wikipedia. You may contact him via e-mail, moscowpride@yahoo.com
Rownosci (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Advice?
Hi, I've been editing the Wikipedia here for 2-3 years but only in the last 6 months did I begin uploading very needed photos using the Bryan Flickr upload from Flickr. During those years though, I never found a single soul who would explain how Commons works so I could help, or at least COPE, after having uploaded several hundred needed photos, one by one from Flickr. As you may know that upload is down (I hear for good). Took me three days and near lunacy to figure out how to find a photo I'd uploaded before it crashed, since the info was there, I finally manually uploaded it. However, I'm at a crisis place. Lots of pro-photographers are currently shedding their copyrights so we'll have BY-CC licensed (at least) images, and you can imagine, they get very concerned when their photo doesn't show up since they don't know if I'm real or not. Can you help me, or do you know someone who can? Otherwise, I'm going to have to quit building infoboxes for photos that'll never come. I barely know how to use a computer! My other problem is that I find properly licensed photos in other language Wikipedias, but I don't speak German, Russian or whatever. Would you take a look at the Blue Oyster Cult article in German? de.wikipedia? I just don't know how to fill it out. Thanks. Frazzled in D.C. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Alhaji Aliko Dangote.jpg
I have forwarded the e-mail providing permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. JovBlackheart (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail to the copyright holder requesting that they release the image under a free license. A small extention on the deletion time, while we wait for a response, would be appreciated. The point-of-contact is the manager of a branch of a multi-billion dollar corporation, so I expect he is quite busy. JovBlackheart (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry, I missed your message somehow. Don't know how. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I received your message on Wikimedia Commons regarding the licensing on the file Flag of the Kingdom of Humanity.svg, and I would like to clarify that I (Octane/Blast) am the creator of that vector file. Octane [improve me?] 19.07.09 2219 (UTC)
Hey I uploaded this image to accompany the I Love Money (Season 1) article, would you mind checkin it out to see if it meets the criteria?? Once again thnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And how bout this one?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion?
Why did you delete an entire article without any marking or comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirnevis (talk • contribs) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- You've entirely erased all content in regard of Mr. Abbas Kargar Javid, I will have to restore the page to allow more information to be added in time frame, if you look at the Neda Agha Soltan Original page, her page was merely few lines when it was created. Zirnevis (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the policy, you may be right if the article should not exist as stub it is. however Death of Neda and Abbas Kargar Javid are not the same thing, one is in regard of someone DYING and another is information about a Person which is claimed to be a murder. These are not obviously related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirnevis (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
John Campbell snr.jpg and Duncancarter-campbell&queenelizabeth.jpg
I have corrected your mistaken deletion requests twice now and have now explained myself on the PUF page. Being a copyright lawyer I am very familiar with the rights! A rule exists on wikipedia called the three revert rule please take it into consideration. --90.197.219.30 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Your user page =]
I enjoyed reading your user page, especially the "I maintain the fungus portal"! =] Alright, cya around Wikipedia! Netalarm 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Raman Chakyar Images
The person in the image ramanchakyar is my uncle and I have the photo from our album. I have full rights regarding the image thats why it has been used in the homepage and its there for last 6 yrs. Thats why I posted that in wikipedia. As I mentioned in my last conversation if the URL placed on the image is the problem then I can very well remove them and upload the same image without URL on it.
If it is still not applicable for Wikipedia policy I have no problem in removing the images.
Pprashh (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Raman Chakyar Images
Thanks J, ramanchakyar
So whether I can upload the images under the section An image from a website option in your upload page. This time I wont put the URL on the image.
Pprashh (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Raman Chakyar Images
Hi J,
I have removed the images from Wikipedia ramanchakyar article.
Pprashh (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
h2g2 article - copyright
Please could you explain the {{non free}} tag on h2g2 and point out what needs changing.
Thanks, AlexAshman (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the logos save for the historical one, which I did not add. I've kept the screenshots - the skins are an important part of the site, both currently and in historical terms. As for reliable sources - how exactly should I go about finding reliable sources for something that can be more easily checked by looking at the site? AlexAshman (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a reference for the skins section and, as you've removed all the logos and skin screenshots, I've removed the {{non free}} tag. AlexAshman (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair to delete without any argument?
Have you added this action to rules here to delete an article without any argument? where you cannot provide a proper answer you will just make your own conclusion backed by anyone else? and just by one vote you have concluded that it is appropriate to delete an article Abbas Kargar Javid, if it is suppose to be deleted it is always put into vote. like I mentioned before if John F Kennedy has an article, John F. Kennedy assassination has a separate article and Lee Harvey Oswald has a separate article and even the killer of the killer has a separate article: Jack Ruby so you cannot argue the the Neda Agha Soltan and Death of Neda Agha Soltan are the same and Abbas Kargar Javid who is officially identified by an eye witness is not meant to be noted. Even if it is a false accussations. Zirnevis (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of permission for Bardor_Tulku_Wiki.jpg
Hi J Milburn, Please check if the provided link is acceptable as evidence of permission for the file Bardor_Tulku_Wiki.jpg included in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktowie Thanks Ktowie (Basia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktowie (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The file File:Sec.stn.platform.gif in the article Secunderabad Railway Station acquired all the courtesies mentioned by Wikipedia. The message in the conclusion of the image should be refered as the permission for the picture by the copyright owner of the given image. So don't blame me for not having the permission of the copyright owner of the picture.So please give me permission fo retaining it! --Sharadbob (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)sharadbob 16:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
NASCAR on TNT
I'm sorry about that. But what exactly does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Edward Aragon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
NASCAR
I am very sorry about this. I was editing stuff in 2008, and caused a lot of waves, and pissed a lot of people off. I'm very sorry and I was just trying to add to the article since it didn't have a picture. Right, screenshots (particularly drivers/cars) can be used or what requirements have to be met? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Edward Aragon (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Exclusion compliant
Just as an FYI, AWB is exclusion compliant, unless you instruct it not to be. (i.e. by clicking "ignore nobots" or something). –xenotalk 03:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Scutellinia scutellata now at GAN
... it looked ready to me. Sasata (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Need your guidance
You left a note on my talk page re: an image I tried hard to upload to Wikimedia Commons: File:800px-BOCSantaCruzlive.jpg. I've been uploading hundreds of needed images only for biographical articles on en.wikipedia. (Check my userpage here). However, I always used the Flickr to Commons upload by Bryan, which apparently, two Admins here have told me is down, probably for good. I found the above image when seeking a better photo of an entire band (often difficult to capture all members clearly). I checked the other language Wikipedias, and the German one did have this photo, but I don't know German, and tried to copy what their rationale was under the image. I left a message in someone's talk page in Commons that I believed spoke German too- was that you? All I want is to be able to use it here. It's a photo of a band, Blue Öyster Cult, and the photo is placed there already. Also, I could use some tips from you.
- I know nobody in Commons, and certainly no one who will teach me anything there. Without that upload bot, I have a string of numbers and stuff saying I have a TUSC account, but when time to fill in the information, I get confused.
- The publicist from Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam sent us two photos to use in the Wikipedia. One is of him as a young man, and the other is only months old. He said the images were for us to use on his page, since we have no face shots of him while young, and nothing really recent. The other photos there were the ONLY pictures I could find at all that weren't copyrighted by his record label(s). Problem: he sent them by email to me, in my Yahoo account. He did specify what the captions should read, which is fine, the usual, so because of those two things, I'd assume the license would be BY-CC. But how to upload them and prove they are OK and from the artist's camp themselves? Can you help me with this? It's been driving me crazy, a couple of weeks I've had these two photos.
THANK YOU for contacting me. If you can help me with getting the German band photo into Commons, I'd appreciate it, and the same with somehow getting someone to check out the two photos (which I still have with the email), but although I've uploaded hundreds of photos to Commons, I'm still not a trusted whatever. So I need some direction in that respect.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair use images
Can you come comment at Talk:Joanne_Gair#Fair_use_images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Further commentary welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned images
Thnx & sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Another German wikipedia image for Commons
Hi, I found another image on de.wikipedia, and think it should be moved to Commons, but don't know how exactly to do it. The image is a photo of the band MIA.. It is OK under Creative Commons: [3]. Can you do it, and let me know? I'd like to see it in our en.wikipedia too in the infobox. I suspect, that other people in wikipedias of all different languages are finding the lack of an easy Flickr uploader to be such a hassle that they just upload to their respective Wikipedias, figuring to deal with getting it to commons in their own sweet time-- if ever! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Mia_03-10_72.jpg){kind=link}
Edditing help?
i need help on acquiring an imaging license. because when i post an image from my computer it requires a license but im not sure how to acquire one. ive looked at the wikipedia imaging pages and all they say is what an image license does and what each of them does but they dont tell you HOW to get one. can you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0528 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:NFCC that justifies deleting the images. All you're doing is using the clause, "A file on which non-free use is claimed that is used in no article (criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification" from the Enforcement section as your loophole: you're removing the images from the article, then claiming that the images are orphaned and should therefore be deleted, and threatening to block anyone who tries to restore the images to the article so that they're not "orphaned". That's very clever, but it's not what the policy actually states, and it doesn't convey the sense that this is a community decision. It also doesn't appear to be the most beneficial use of your admin privileges.
I'd appreciate hearing your specific comments as to why the images should not be in the article. Radiopathy •talk• 02:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've left this for others to discuss by mentioning the CSD's on the article's talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
How to deal with a wikizealot?
Dear Mr. J, I see you have run into Radiopathy. He likes to jump in (even while you are crafting your new additions) and edit them out. He jumped in on me and has blocked my latest information aboutHollie Steel. What luck have you had in getting this guy punished? Any suggestions? I don't think he has written an original article ever for Wikipedia. Cheers, Dane --Dane Sorensen (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The user is forum shopping. He is adding content to this article which is in clear violation of WP:FANSITE and WP:ADVERT. He has been politely asked on his talk page to not do so.Radiopathy •talk• 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Radiopathy is correct. That tone is completely inappropriate. The fact Steele now has a manager may be worth including, but it should be included in a neutral way, preferably referenced to a reliable source. I have no interest in having Radiopathy "punished"; we do not punish editors here, and, even if we did, reverting comments like that would hardly be a punishable offense. I advise you stop your edit warring. J Milburn (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
PUF feedback requested
Could you respond at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 14#File:Bauji with VP.jpg so that the outcome can be more easily determined? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Marktreut and OR
I noticed you had a lot of problems with this user and non-free images in Characters in The Adventures of Tintin. He's also been causing problems in a lot of other articles with trying to inject original research and his personal interpretations to articles, including List of InuYasha characters, Gunslinger Girl, Alternate versions of Batman, A Hard Day's Night (film) (a GA), List of child prodigies in fiction, and Factual accuracy of The Great Escape (lots of warring there). He was blocked not long ago for vandalizing the InuYasha list after his attempts were repeatedly removed by myself and others, however once the block expired (which he reacted to by laughing), he has gone right back to continuing to his old behavior, edit warring whenever his OR is removed and descending to personal attacks and what not. Myself and others have tried talking with him, first assuming good faith, but as time progressed likely with increasing annoyance. He basically ignores all attempts to help him understand why he's doing inappropriate edits and now just blanks new warnings and messages on his talk page. His openly hostile on my talk page when we interact to the point I've asked him not to post there at all. His tantrum of vandalizing the InuYasha page in response to the earlier discussions is also disconcerting, as is his reaction to the block.[4] Thoughts on ways of dealing with this? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thought you might be interested in knowing I filed an SPI on him at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktreut for suspected IP socking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Characters in Digimon Adventure
I'm sorry, but no. Several of those images, especially the Mummymon and Arukenimon images, are specifically called out and relevant to the text, and as the rules say, if your edit is challenged it is up to you to explain it.
As for the tags - no, they are not self-explanatory. This is again a rule, and I have gotten yelled at for simply putting "fact" tags next to uncited statements without explaining it on the talk page: If you claim there are major problems with the article, it is your responsibility to explain what you believe those problems are; otherwise, I can just say, "Well, in my view the page has plenty of references/notability/whatever, so it no longer needs the tags." I don't necessarily disagree with you, which is why I didn't remove the tags, but you need to actually put some work into this.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Going back over it though, the page says over and over again "In the anime" or cites specific episodes, so I can't see how it's in universe, taking "good article" and "featured article" fictional character lists as a guide. As for the images,
- Etemon is called out as an Elvis impersonator, for example, and his image goes with that
- DemiDevimon's image goes with the confusion about his hatred for bats.
- Arukenimon and Mummymon's human disguises and revealed true forms are also mentioned in the text
- Leomon's appearance is called out in the text
- Ogremon's appearance is called out in the text
- Sukamon's design is covered in the text
Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- "I have also explained my edit entirely- the images are clearly in violation of the NFCC."
- That's not an explanation at all, that's a claim, and I already had told you it needed an explanation.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- No. The images used in the article have the proper explanation and documentation templates on their file pages, and are used to complement, but not decorate the text. As I have said, they fulfill the requirements. Furthermore, I have personally explained how each image you removed and put up for deletion is referenced within the text, as the fair use guidelines require. It is your place to show how the images are in violation, since you are the one claiming violation, and trying to make what has turned out to be a controversial change to the article. The arguments for why they should be there have already been made, and were made before you even first saw the article. I have reverted your "too bold" (or whatever the term is) removals of the non-decorative images, as well as the orphan tags for the images you are trying to delete. At this point, you are removing information that has had several reasons given for its presence, while denying the presence of those explanations, and that seems to me to be improper.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's not an explanation at all, that's a claim, and I already had told you it needed an explanation.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- For crying out loud - each of the removed images has "NFCC rationale". The "for images" side has given claims already.
- As for "my" edit warring - the usual, polite way to do things is to revert to the version of the page that existed before there was a disagreement - not whichever version you happen to like. That's what I reverted to. I have tried to compromise with you on this issue, but you both refuse to compromise whatsoever but also to cite any actual policy behind your drastic removals. And from what I have seen on your talk page, you have a tendency to game the "system" when removing images, just as you have been doing here.
- I'm not seeing anywhere in the policy that images must be explicitly called for by the sources.
- Here are the specific lines that I feel give some justification for the images:
- "Etemon has the character of an Elvis impersonator."
- "Each time one of the plans failed, DemiDevimon was punished by Myotismon or his bats, which DemiDevimon states to hating bats twice, despite referring to himself as a "bat Digimon"." (not OR)
- "He usually appeared as a humanoid dressed in a royal blue coat and an odd hat with randomly scattered golden buttons and wielding a cane (which he rarely used, if ever). However, his appearance was hardly human; his skin was grey and wrinkly, he lacked ears and a nose, and he had only one eye, and it too was of an unusual yellow color. In addition, his physique was odd, with wide shoulders, long arms and unusually large hands. In battle, he shifted to his Digimon form." (not OR)
- "She usually appeared in the form of a woman with odd red and purple clothing and large shades concealing her eyes. When in battle, she shifted to her Digimon form." (not OR)
- "When ordered to kill TK and Patamon, he was infused with an additional seven black gears which increased his size and power and darkened his colour tone, subsequently being able to incacipate the obstructive Garurumon and Greymon with his Fist of the Beast King attack. " (not OR)
- "Ogremon would later be referenced in the first episode of Digimon Adventure 02, when T.K. and Kari commented that their teacher looked like him (English dub only)." (not OR)
- "Though Sukamon is designed to be a pile of feces, the dub version has Mimi refer to Sukamon as a 'lemon custard'." (also not OR)
The only one I see there that isn't explicitly said or depicted within the series is the Etemon bit.
Because I highly doubt you will take the time to actually come up with a reason the images are unsuitable, I'll go through the policy myself:
- There is no free equivalent of these images
- These images have never been used in any actual product of the franchise, and were released purely as character depictions on the free-to-view public website.
- None of the images are redundant
- The images use the absolute minimum of material
- As said before, the images were displayed on the promotional websites at digimon.net
- Images are professional
- Images are appropriately displayed in article
- Images are used in at least one article
- As explained several times, the images work with the text
- Images are only in a real article
- The image description pages list all of the above.
So, as said over and over, the images have proper rationales.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then before continuing to edit the page, please contact User:Ned Scott, a member of the Digimon WikiProject who is extremely well versed in the copyright and fair use laws, because there doesn't appear to be anything I'm saying that is actually heard. If you can't get ahold of him right away, please remove the deletion tags from the images, for good faith (so that they are not deleted while the discussion is still ongoing, and since their being orphaned is disputed).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've left a comment here. I'm really not seeing the point of these outlines, and I am looking for an explanation. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up. I've replied there. The Transhumanist 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello a favor?
I have a few very confused photographers who are willing to give us their photos but even they can't figure out the upload to Commons, now that there's no Flickr to Commons upload that works. If I get them to drop their copyright and either pick the "BY" "BY"-"CC" or "BY-CC-SA" license, can you upload them to Commons? We really need these- they are for the musicians' biographies and each person has either no photo, or (in one case) has one so cloudy you can't make out the person in the photo. There are like, seven of them. ??? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Marco Polo sheep
|
|
On July 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marco Polo sheep, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
BorgQueen (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Spotlight needs suggestions
 |  Spotlight needs your help! We've had great success with Marco Polo (now a Good Article), and Marco Polo sheep (currently on the main page in the "Did You Know..."). We're now working on Dry ice. We'll be choosing the next article on Sunday 26th July, and the following one on Friday 31st July (which is when we'll finish Dry ice). Therefore, we need suggestions, here - and even more importantly, we need comment on the suggestions of others. Hope to see you in the channel again soon, cheers, Chzz ► 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
User:JonathanLGardner
After leaving JonathanLGardner (talk · contribs) a final warning about adding non-free images to biographies of living person, they replied on my talk page, saying at the end "Remember to get some t a m p a x if you have the time". I'd call this incivility, at best. — Σxplicit 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
: 27 July 2009
- From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
- Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
- Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
- Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
- News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
- Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave it copyright.
The image you told me about has a copyright license and should not be removed.--*** ******* 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)User:Boyhere
Re:File permission problem with File:Iscin.jpg
I contacted Jim Cookas of I:Scintilla; he should be contacting you within the week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaostar (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete logo
Hi. I now realize the logo I uploaded should have actually been uploaded using the logo fair use rationale.
It is this file:
File:CW Frght bluRGB-tag.jpg
I saw you/someone placed a delete tag for Aug 4. Could you make it speedy deletion? I will resubmit the logo under the correct criteria. Thank you. Tcy3421 (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
How to correctly upload a logo with source information
I have found the place to correctly upload the logo I want in my article. Where do I fill in the source information? In the "Summary" box? Do I input the information after the equals " = " signs?
If I want to edit any of that information after initially writing it, how do I change it?
If there is a Wiki article on this, please feel free to refer me to it. Thank you. Tcy3421 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but i got no response from you! I said that had acquired the permission from the copyright holder of the File:Sec.stn.platform.gif which was uploaded by me in the article Secunderabad Railway Station. I have already acquired the permission! Permission from the copy right owner of the [[File:Sec.stn.platform.gif]: Hi Sharad,
Thanks a lot for contacting me.
Glad to know that you asked me for putting a picture on wikipedia.
Yes please go ahead and please let me know when it is done.
Take Care Mohammed Zubair Hyderabad Planet This was sent to me via mail! Source of the Imagee:HYderabad Planet Travel That was the permission from the copyright owner of the image.I can't understand what actually you want for the image to be retained? --Sharadbob (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sarin gas attack on Tokyo photo
What do i need to write for a rationale? Sherzo (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair use images in galleries
Thanks for uncovering this problem in general. This is sometimes like a game of Whac-A-Mole. You get a handle on one problem and then another fair use area crops up.
It's personally frustrating to me to see how hard people press to push fair use images into Wikipedia. I don't mind fair use images when there's a clear, blatant reason for them to be included. But when we end up with articles having scads of fair use images in them, it's clearly problematic. The fights never end though. People routinely fail to understand what free content really means.
So often I see people saying "but it's legal!" and "it adds to the article so it's ok!", and etc. It's maddening. What part of "free content" do people not understand? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- What part of "the sum of all knowledge" do people not understand? Jheald (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you want a non-free, sum of all knowledge encyclopedia, you have the right to fork. The database is available for download. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good. So if you want a NFC-free encyclopedia of just the information you personally deem to be significant, you know what you should do. Jheald (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome to quote Jimbo all you like, it doesn't change the fact that we're the "free" encyclopedia. We have strict NFCC for a reason. I do not support the removal of all fair use material, as I have said, but I do support limiting it. Our current policy limits it well, but, sadly, so many people feel that, for some reason, the NFCC should not be respected equally to other policies, and too many admins are scared of getting involved because of the ridiculous threads, the type of which you can see further up my page. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jheald, if you insist on quoting Jimbo you should also be quoting him when he notes that fair use should be strictly limited to only historically significant images and little more. Regardless, Jimbo doesn't set policy here. Jimbo isn't even in charge of the Foundation anymore. Our m:mission is to create a free encyclopedia. You can't pick and choose what parts of our mission you want to pay attention to and which you do not. Welcome to the world of free content. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing where corporate mega giants have no control, no say over who can get, use, and modify information as they like. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, not much distance between us I think on the modalities of how the template should be used. Just maybe some distance on what is needed actually to satisfy NFCC#8 and #3; and perhaps how substantial the text would need to be discussing the images. Jheald (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Gallery Images
You need to take your removal of gallery images to AN or ANI before going on a deletion spree. There is nothing in the rules that say galleries can't be used, even the biggest deleter User:A Man In Black found that out. I am asking you to revert your deletion noms and take it to talk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The television station images. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But they do not have consensus on television station galleries. There is alot of back and forth on them, but there was no real consensus either way. Trust me, I was part of that
conversationwar of words. I think galleries of television station logos give a sense of history that can't be discribed by words. You can't discribe a logo. So, in a way, they are part of a history section of their own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)- J Milburn you should read this discussion and this discussion. Powergate92Talk 20:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But if they have FURs, then exactly what harm are they causing the project? This is a very hotly debated issue and as you can see from the discussions which Powergate92 linked above (which I hope you will read) there is issue on both sides, but zero consensus on what to do with them. Hence why this should be taken to talk or ANI/AN for consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you "flicked" through the discussions, you obviously didn't read the big sections written by a couple users that made the biggest deleter User:A Man In Black stop deleting image galleries and admit he was wrong for doing so. If you want to go around, without any form of consensus, and delete images that is fine by me. They will be, as they were with AMIB, back up in a weeks time. People keep readding them and people keep deleting them, it is a way of life here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But if they have FURs, then exactly what harm are they causing the project? This is a very hotly debated issue and as you can see from the discussions which Powergate92 linked above (which I hope you will read) there is issue on both sides, but zero consensus on what to do with them. Hence why this should be taken to talk or ANI/AN for consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- J Milburn you should read this discussion and this discussion. Powergate92Talk 20:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But they do not have consensus on television station galleries. There is alot of back and forth on them, but there was no real consensus either way. Trust me, I was part of that
(undent) Allow me to link to you the finding and email question to Mike Godwin on this....
Mike Godwin wrote:
Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use. I think it's unlikely that the local stations will even complain about the use of the logos. --Mike On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:54 PM, C J wrote: > Hello, > > I realize you are an incredibly busy individual but am writing to > you in hopes of getting some clarification that no one else seems to > have the particular expertise to provide. Specifically a user within > the project has begun deleting historical logos formally used by > local television stations within the United States. The logos are > sourced and tagged with fair use rationale for their historical > significance but it was argued because they appeared next to each > other they needed to be deleted as they constituted a gallery of non- > free images. The other side to the argument has remained that the > historical logos uniquely illustrate how it identified itself to > the public during a particular era as well as how that identity > evolved over time. > > We are all hoping to reach further clarification from a definitive > source to resolve this somewhat contentious issue so any feedback > you might be able to provide in regards to this would be deeply > appreciated.
....that is what stopped AMIB. Legal says they are OK, they are OK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't read the post, Mike Godwin said, and I quote "Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use"....fair use. Not non-fair...fair. You are going against legal counsel's recommendation on this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But he also said they were "Fair Use", which null and voids any and all Non-Free discussion. Non free does not equal fair use. Which means you are going against legal counsel, who says the images are legal and fair use, and citing some rule you say goes beyond the words of the legal counsel of Wikipedia, who is the end-all-be-all. He says they are fine, they are fine. Now, put them back...this discussion is giving me a migraine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You aren't the person to say whether it "meets our guidelines" or not. That is up to Mike....unless you have somehow become legal counsel for Wikipedia without anyone knowing. We are editors, not legal counsel. Also, the rules of a website (which is what Wikipedia is, regardless of what some might think) are not stricter than the government law. US Government Fair Use Law is higher on the todem pole than a silly little rule on some silly little website. You are pushing the rules of this silly little website higher than the laws of the land. That is just, well, silly, and slightly egotisical. Wikipedia Rules does not equal Federal Law....you ain't going to convince me of that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain his post "Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use." How do you explain that? He says they are fair use. To be honest, nowhere in his answer does he say the word "legal". So, I think we are reading two different posts. But how do you explain his answer? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Non-free content criteria is a guidelines and not a policy. A former Wikipedia administrator named Ryulong said in a discussion at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade#It's "Kamen" that "Guidelines are only suggestions for content. They are not always followed. That is why they are only guidelines and not policy."Powergate92Talk 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)- That's why i removed my comment because WP:Non-free content criteria is a policy and not a guideline. Powergate92Talk 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But with this it places you out of consensus. That post I just linked was everyone coming to agreement on what Mike said that television station galleries are perfectly OK. YOu are not in consensus, you need to talk this to talk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain his post "Use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use." How do you explain that? He says they are fair use. To be honest, nowhere in his answer does he say the word "legal". So, I think we are reading two different posts. But how do you explain his answer? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You aren't the person to say whether it "meets our guidelines" or not. That is up to Mike....unless you have somehow become legal counsel for Wikipedia without anyone knowing. We are editors, not legal counsel. Also, the rules of a website (which is what Wikipedia is, regardless of what some might think) are not stricter than the government law. US Government Fair Use Law is higher on the todem pole than a silly little rule on some silly little website. You are pushing the rules of this silly little website higher than the laws of the land. That is just, well, silly, and slightly egotisical. Wikipedia Rules does not equal Federal Law....you ain't going to convince me of that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- But he also said they were "Fair Use", which null and voids any and all Non-Free discussion. Non free does not equal fair use. Which means you are going against legal counsel, who says the images are legal and fair use, and citing some rule you say goes beyond the words of the legal counsel of Wikipedia, who is the end-all-be-all. He says they are fine, they are fine. Now, put them back...this discussion is giving me a migraine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Why should I take something to talk or VP when I am not the one deleting it. Right now you are acting out of consensus, making up things to cite, and kinda being a WP:DICK when it comes to this subject. You have been told you are acting out of consensus with legal counsel and you, at the moment, think that the rules of Wikipedia supercede legal counsel. That is egotistical. I am asking, politely, for you to revert your edits or go over your head and I do it for you and cite legal counsel along the way. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pull the word "legal" out of your head for about 5 seconds. I said nothing about legal in the previous psot. You are superceding legal counsel and trying to act like the end-all-be-all of fair use. You aren't, that is Mike's job and he gets paid very well for it. You are not in consensus and you are acting outside the recommendation of Mike Godwin who said (and I will quote AGAIN) that "use of historical logos in this way strikes me as fair use". That means (and everyone from me to AMIB understand) that they (galleries of television logos) are OK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You do understand that since he said it was "fair use" that it makes "NFCC" moot in this subject. At last check NFCC stood for "Non-free content criteria"....well, we have images that are "fair use" making then "free", so the "Non-free content criteria" means nothing to them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- If Mike says it is, then that is what I believe. I am not legal counsel guy, so if he says something is, then it is and we (as non-legal counsel guys) shouldn't argue it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Next time up, I think you should run for legal counsel. You seem to "know" all the policies and information about them, you should do it. You would make a good legal counsel and probably run Wikipedia into the ground. But that is beside the point. You are against consensus, a consensus built on the wording from Mike Godwin here and agreed upon. If you don't like it, go get consensus of your own (like you have tried) and then delete them. Until you, you are in violation of consensus and the words of Mike Godwin. I think you are pretty well outnumbered. Oh yeah, and you are in violation of WP:DICK...again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- If Mike says it is, then that is what I believe. I am not legal counsel guy, so if he says something is, then it is and we (as non-legal counsel guys) shouldn't argue it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You do understand that since he said it was "fair use" that it makes "NFCC" moot in this subject. At last check NFCC stood for "Non-free content criteria"....well, we have images that are "fair use" making then "free", so the "Non-free content criteria" means nothing to them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Random break 1
(undent)OK, one, I think I should remind you of WP:NPA, it may be lukewarm (not even mild) but telling someone to "shut up", is a personal attack.
Let's go down the list of NFCC guidelines, shall we?
1 - "No free equivalent" - There is no free version of the logos. 2 - "Respect for commercial opportunities" - The images are used in a respectful manner. 3a - "Minimal usage" - Used on only once. 3b - "Minimal extent of use" - Again, used on only one page. 4 - "Previous publication" - Can be found on many television station history websites. 5 - "Content" - Their content can not be written in text (you can't discribe a logo). 6 - "Media-specific policy" - Meets the policy. 7 - "One-article minimum" - Used on only one page. 8 - "Significance" - They are significant because they show the history of the station (sometimes through format or call sign changes) in image. 9 - "Restrictions on location" - Only used in and on the television station page. 10 - "Image description page" - All contain the discription page.
So....they meet the guidelines. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- 8, "Significance", the logos are, as I said, are significant because they show the history of the station in image. If you took the images of any station, it would be very hard to discribe them in prose. Plus, in some cases, the images are logos that go back to the very start of the station, some with the iconic Indian Head Test Pattern. They have information about when the logo was used, some information on the history of the logo during that time, some details on changes to the logo or even call sign. At one station, the logo shows the station go through 3 call sign changes and how the logos change during those changes. This is information that can not be put in prose. You would have 10 paragraphs just discribing the damned image in some cases.
- Oh, and sorry for the delay in responding, I was eating dinner. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sources can be found to link to each logo, that has never been a problem. Normally the source is found in the FUR template, but I would like to see you put this logo into prose. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you are going to find any sources of discussions of the logo, because most people just look at the logo. Looking at something is easier than reading about it. Less text too :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I knew you would delete those KTTV images, good show. There isn't prose about them because people want to look at them. You are asking for something that is unnecessary. You are wanting prose on something that doesn't require it. It's an image, it doesn't require words. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's what a picture does, it allows you to show something without words. Hell, I learned that when I was 3. Pictures =/= words. The images, with a small bit of text below showing when the image was used, (like the previous KTTV gallery) are the standard. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are repeating yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's what a picture does, it allows you to show something without words. Hell, I learned that when I was 3. Pictures =/= words. The images, with a small bit of text below showing when the image was used, (like the previous KTTV gallery) are the standard. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I knew you would delete those KTTV images, good show. There isn't prose about them because people want to look at them. You are asking for something that is unnecessary. You are wanting prose on something that doesn't require it. It's an image, it doesn't require words. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you are going to find any sources of discussions of the logo, because most people just look at the logo. Looking at something is easier than reading about it. Less text too :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sources can be found to link to each logo, that has never been a problem. Normally the source is found in the FUR template, but I would like to see you put this logo into prose. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I did, you just don't like the answer, I guess. My answer was "That's what a picture does, it allows you to show something without words." - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have made no proposal. This is what happens with television station images. They are shown, information about when to when the image was used, a little information about the image and we move on. We don't need six paragraphs discribing a picture. Now if we were talking about something by Vincent Van Gogh maybe, but a logo for a television station doesn't require that and that isn't listed under NFCC rules anyway. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, they are fair use images. Let's use exactly what Godwin said. If you want prose on an image, how would your discribe this image. I would like to know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't threaten. You have already told me to shut up twice in violation of NPA, so we both will get blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, they are fair use images. Let's use exactly what Godwin said. If you want prose on an image, how would your discribe this image. I would like to know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
A bit of calmness would help here. You can't resolve the issue between you, it seems, so follow WP:DR and seek out a wider Consensus, such as WP:RFC. Galleries of NFC are usually unacceptable per Wikipedia:Nfc#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries, but there are exceptions. Ty 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is consensus from a discussion at WP:TVS, which J Milburn has tossed aside. I will not revert J Milburn's CSDs because I don't want an edit war, but I will not be surprised if those edits show back up in a weeks time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#8 doe's not say you need reliable sources discussing the logos, it says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and the logos do increase readers' understanding of the topic as they show the changes in the TV stations call sign and branding throughout the TV stations history. Powergate92Talk 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And if that was genuinely important, it would be discussed... J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 doe's not say you need reliable sources discussing the logos and it doe's not say the logos need to be discussed in the article text, it says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and again the logos do increase readers' understanding of the topic as they show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history. Powergate92Talk 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And why is it so important that they are shown? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because they show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history e.g. File:Album wb61 sub.png is from when KASW started as WB 61, File:KASW-2006Improved.jpg is from when KASW changed there branding to WB 6 and File:Kasw cw.png is from when KASW changed there network affiliation to The CW and there branding to CW 6. Powergate92Talk 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I asked why it was important to show the changes in call signs, you can't answer that with "they show the changes in the TV stations call sign", you're just begging the question. I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking why it needs to be shown. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because the call signs are part of the TV stations name so it is important to show the changes in call signs. Powergate92Talk 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lots of things are part of the TV station. Should we also have non-free images illustrating the change of building? The change of owner? The change of newsreader? The change of the guy who does the voiceover? The change of managing director? J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say part of the TV station, i said part of the TV stations name. Powergate92Talk 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No they aren't. A name is a word. "J Milburn" is my name; a picture that represents me is not my name. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If the call signs are not part of the TV stations name then why are the names of TV station articles the call signs? Powergate92Talk 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Using that logic, if I print a teeshirt with my name on, the teeshirt is part of my name. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The call signs are the TV stations legal name as that is how they are listed in the FCC database. Powergate92Talk 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The legal name of a television station is not a picture. Have you actually read back what you're saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The call signs being the legal name of the TV stations shows that the call signs are important. Powergate92Talk 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You believe that the legal name of a television station is a picture? J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say "the legal name of a television station is a picture", i said "The call signs being the legal name of the TV stations shows that the call signs are important." Powergate92Talk 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You believe that the legal name of a television station is a picture? J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The call signs being the legal name of the TV stations shows that the call signs are important. Powergate92Talk 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The legal name of a television station is not a picture. Have you actually read back what you're saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The call signs are the TV stations legal name as that is how they are listed in the FCC database. Powergate92Talk 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Using that logic, if I print a teeshirt with my name on, the teeshirt is part of my name. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If the call signs are not part of the TV stations name then why are the names of TV station articles the call signs? Powergate92Talk 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No they aren't. A name is a word. "J Milburn" is my name; a picture that represents me is not my name. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say part of the TV station, i said part of the TV stations name. Powergate92Talk 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lots of things are part of the TV station. Should we also have non-free images illustrating the change of building? The change of owner? The change of newsreader? The change of the guy who does the voiceover? The change of managing director? J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because the call signs are part of the TV stations name so it is important to show the changes in call signs. Powergate92Talk 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I asked why it was important to show the changes in call signs, you can't answer that with "they show the changes in the TV stations call sign", you're just begging the question. I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking why it needs to be shown. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because they show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history e.g. File:Album wb61 sub.png is from when KASW started as WB 61, File:KASW-2006Improved.jpg is from when KASW changed there branding to WB 6 and File:Kasw cw.png is from when KASW changed there network affiliation to The CW and there branding to CW 6. Powergate92Talk 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And why is it so important that they are shown? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 doe's not say you need reliable sources discussing the logos and it doe's not say the logos need to be discussed in the article text, it says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and again the logos do increase readers' understanding of the topic as they show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history. Powergate92Talk 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I'll phrase this simply. We both agree that call signs are pictures, yes? You believe that call signs are the legal names of the station, yes? If both of these beliefs are correct, then the legal name of the station is a picture, yes? J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Random break 2
(undent) Let me ask a question (and let's try and keep this on one page)...who exactly died and left you in charge to ask "why it needs to be shown"? We don't have to answer to you. We have consensus and the words of the legal counsel saying the images are fair use and perfectly fine under NFCC. You come in gung ho deleting everything on a whim and demanding a response and an explanation on why a picture should be included and you want an explanation of the picture. That is just stupid. That is what the picture is for, so five sentences discribing it isn't needed. Now, what?! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please leave me alone. I have no interest in discussing this with you any more. You have consistent refused to get the point (you're still ranting about your legal nonsense), and have continued with your deceptive and offensive behaviour (I hope no one has died, and I've never pretended I'm "in charge"). Back off. I am happy to discuss this with Powergate or any other user, but you have pushed my ability to assume good faith to the limit. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- When you drop this little "deletion party" you have started, revert your edits, recognize already established consensus, recognize the words of Godwin showing the images are within NFCC and say nothing of the word "legal", and drop the condescending attitude where you think you are required an explanation and discription for everything....then I will gladly leave you alone. Until them, you are started this, you are stuck with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, if I'm stuck with you, I'm happy to make you a perfectly reasonable deal. I will discuss this with you as soon as you stop talking about Godwin. I honestly don't think this is hard to understand, but I may be mistaken. What Godwin said is not important; we all accept that the images are legal under US fair use law, which is all Godwin was talking about. Once we have got that out of the way, our discussion can hopefully head towards some kind of conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- ...and what I am saying is Godwin never technically says the word "legal". Yes, we all understand and nod in agreement that the images are legal fair use, that has never been a point. What I am saying is Godwin says they are fine (not meaning as a legal term, meaning OK) under NFCC because they are fair use. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's not what he said at all. He said they were fair use. That's a legal term. He didn't say they "meet our non-free content criteria", which are stricter than US fair use law. Even if he did, he is in no position to dictate what does and does not meet policy- he's only in a position to tell us what is legal. He does have the power to stop activity that is illegal or that he feels put Wikipedia at risk, but that's as far as his special authority on the English Wikipedia goes. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is the way we, at that WP:TVS conversation, understood it....even User:A Man In Black took it in that way. That is what the consensus was based upon, that understanding. OK, let's do this....let's get a better explanation from Godwin. Someone email him, make him aware of this conversation and have him better explain his post, maybe then we can find some better consensus on whether the images, according to him (whether he has any pull on NFCC or not) meet NFCC...maybe even Jimbo's opinion on this would be good. Opinions are good, they build consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's not what he said at all. He said they were fair use. That's a legal term. He didn't say they "meet our non-free content criteria", which are stricter than US fair use law. Even if he did, he is in no position to dictate what does and does not meet policy- he's only in a position to tell us what is legal. He does have the power to stop activity that is illegal or that he feels put Wikipedia at risk, but that's as far as his special authority on the English Wikipedia goes. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- ...and what I am saying is Godwin never technically says the word "legal". Yes, we all understand and nod in agreement that the images are legal fair use, that has never been a point. What I am saying is Godwin says they are fine (not meaning as a legal term, meaning OK) under NFCC because they are fair use. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, if I'm stuck with you, I'm happy to make you a perfectly reasonable deal. I will discuss this with you as soon as you stop talking about Godwin. I honestly don't think this is hard to understand, but I may be mistaken. What Godwin said is not important; we all accept that the images are legal under US fair use law, which is all Godwin was talking about. Once we have got that out of the way, our discussion can hopefully head towards some kind of conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- When you drop this little "deletion party" you have started, revert your edits, recognize already established consensus, recognize the words of Godwin showing the images are within NFCC and say nothing of the word "legal", and drop the condescending attitude where you think you are required an explanation and discription for everything....then I will gladly leave you alone. Until them, you are started this, you are stuck with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent)No, I want to contact Godwin and Jimbo to get a better explanation on Godwin's post (the one from above). If he can expand on it, maybe make it less vauge (cause it is kinda vauge at the moment, with two different understandings on it, yours and mine), then maybe (MAYBE!) we can come to some for of agreement on this and move things alone one way or the other. How is that "stupid"? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The post is not vague at all. Godwin was asked if the images were legal. He said they were. We agree on that. He said nothing about our non-free content criteria, and there is no point wasting his time by making him say the same thing again. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- We are not wasting his time, he gets paid to answer questions like this. That is his job. You don't want to contact Godwin, fine, whatever....we will use that as a last option. But what it has come down to is #8 on NFCC....how the images are significant. They are significant, as I have said, because they add information that can not be discribed in prose. It can be discribed, yes, but at great length. There is information on some pages, that lets the reader know the station has changed logo, affiliation or callsign. The image backs that information up in ways with a viewable image. This helps the reader understand, via picture, what is going on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's significant because it can't be described in words? What my face looks like can't be described in words; doesn't mean that should be in the article. What makes these logos so important? J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because (and I have said this before) they show the station's image/logo through time. Some go back to the 40s and 50s with images. This shows the viewer (of the page) what the station looked like back then. This can not be put into words. With KPNX, that stations images showed the station with a different callsign, KTAR. That is in the text of the article, but it shows the reader what they would have seen if they turned on their TVs in the 50s in Phoenix, for example. One image that wasn't deleted has a tidbid of information that the "12" was used after the station changed callsign from KTAR to KPNX. Again, information that is better served with an image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a typical example of petitio principii. We know it shows the station's logos through time, but why does that need to be shown? Why's that important? J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I can explain it any better. You can explain an image/logo with text. It is better to show a picture. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a typical example of petitio principii. We know it shows the station's logos through time, but why does that need to be shown? Why's that important? J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because (and I have said this before) they show the station's image/logo through time. Some go back to the 40s and 50s with images. This shows the viewer (of the page) what the station looked like back then. This can not be put into words. With KPNX, that stations images showed the station with a different callsign, KTAR. That is in the text of the article, but it shows the reader what they would have seen if they turned on their TVs in the 50s in Phoenix, for example. One image that wasn't deleted has a tidbid of information that the "12" was used after the station changed callsign from KTAR to KPNX. Again, information that is better served with an image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's significant because it can't be described in words? What my face looks like can't be described in words; doesn't mean that should be in the article. What makes these logos so important? J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- We are not wasting his time, he gets paid to answer questions like this. That is his job. You don't want to contact Godwin, fine, whatever....we will use that as a last option. But what it has come down to is #8 on NFCC....how the images are significant. They are significant, as I have said, because they add information that can not be discribed in prose. It can be discribed, yes, but at great length. There is information on some pages, that lets the reader know the station has changed logo, affiliation or callsign. The image backs that information up in ways with a viewable image. This helps the reader understand, via picture, what is going on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I have explained it at least 6 different ways, at least 6 different times. I am not sure what you are wanting to hear. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll make it simple. I don't think these historical logos are important. I don't get why we should care. Sure, the current logo is of interest, but why are these historical ones? J Milburn (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The historical logos show something that sometimes only happened for a year. At one station they used a special logo just for 1976. That is important. Now showing the image with six different versions of the current logo isn't. Having, like that '76 logo, is something that is important for the viewer to see. Another one would be at a Chicago station, they used the Thames logo for a couple years. That is unusual, cause Thames is a UK network and a US television station using the logo is unusual. That is important. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're doing it again. "That is important". Why? The fact a logo was only used for one year sounds like it would be even less important. What is making you believe that these trivial facts are important? J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, you are. You are wanting some exact answer only you know. I have repeated and repeated myself over and over and over and I am not sure what answer you are wanting. They are important because they give information that can only be given through image. That is my answer. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- So you'll be supporting me when I try to include images of my face in the article? After all, you can't really put that into words. Much easier just to include an image. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If the picture of your face has something to do with the article it is on, yes. Those images have something to do with that station. Like the images on KPNX, they are connected to that station. They are important to that station and only that station, no other. So, if your face is important to some page, then yes, i will support it being there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- So you'll be supporting me when I try to include images of my face in the article? After all, you can't really put that into words. Much easier just to include an image. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, you are. You are wanting some exact answer only you know. I have repeated and repeated myself over and over and over and I am not sure what answer you are wanting. They are important because they give information that can only be given through image. That is my answer. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're doing it again. "That is important". Why? The fact a logo was only used for one year sounds like it would be even less important. What is making you believe that these trivial facts are important? J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The historical logos show something that sometimes only happened for a year. At one station they used a special logo just for 1976. That is important. Now showing the image with six different versions of the current logo isn't. Having, like that '76 logo, is something that is important for the viewer to see. Another one would be at a Chicago station, they used the Thames logo for a couple years. That is unusual, cause Thames is a UK network and a US television station using the logo is unusual. That is important. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I can only guess what was decided, cause I didn't decide myself, but in most cases if it is historic, it was placed. Some people will place many versions of the most up-to-date image (like with a network logo, one with an HD logo, one without the network logo, etc.), that isn't necessary in my opinion and should be deleted. But if the image is historical (before the use of the current logo), then I feel it should be added. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Purely because the image is historical, it should be added? Should we also add historical images of all previous newsreaders? Of all previous owners? Of all previous managing directors? Of all previous... If not, why the historic logos? Can you really not see where I'm coming from here? J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying we should go nuts and start plastering images of historic value all over the place and yes, I can see the slippery slope that doing this would cause...but, I can see the value this would add to the page as well, in the case of television station pages. If not adding them as a gallery at the bottom of the page, adding them on the sides (as thumbs) in the history section so people can look over at the logo while they are reading the history....that would serve the reader better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Neutralhomer. Powergate92Talk 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you can see what I mean, but why have to draw the line at logos? Why not just avoid that slippery slope altogether? J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am one of those who likes to add as much information as possible. Text, images, the whole kit and kaboodle. I think it all should be there. It makes the article better and helps the reader understand things better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you can see what I mean, but why have to draw the line at logos? Why not just avoid that slippery slope altogether? J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Neutralhomer. Powergate92Talk 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying we should go nuts and start plastering images of historic value all over the place and yes, I can see the slippery slope that doing this would cause...but, I can see the value this would add to the page as well, in the case of television station pages. If not adding them as a gallery at the bottom of the page, adding them on the sides (as thumbs) in the history section so people can look over at the logo while they are reading the history....that would serve the reader better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Some will include pictures they have taken of the studios of the station. That is rare, but it does happen. So it isn't reserved just for logos. I think the reason you see more of them is they are easier to come by. People can find them on station history sites, logo history sites and the like. They are just easy to come by, instead of driving to the studios and snapping a picture to put up, you can just click "save image as" and upload it with an FUR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do you consider that a valid reason to include the images? Because they're "easy to come by"? J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, my reason is they add historical information to the page as I have said above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And why is that historical information so important? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here we are back the continous "why?" question again. I am aware Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", but when the logos have to do with one station and one station alone and are used on one page, information that is important to the understanding of the history of that station, that makes them important. Now, please, don't ask "why?" again :S - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right, look, the reason I keep asking is because you haven't answered. You can't just keep saying "they're important, we need to see what they look like, they're important" and expect people to believe you. This is the thing- if we're going to use non-free content, there must be a reason. This ties in with non-free content criterion 8- the use of non-free content must significantly increase reader understanding of the topic, and until you explain how these images are doing that, you're simply not going to get anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have given you several reasons, which obviously you haven't read or don't like. Go back and read them and get back to me, cause right now you are just asking "why?" at everything even though you are getting answers. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've read them all, and explained why every one of them is completely invalid. If you're not going to provide an answer to that question, I consider the discussion over. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- They are "invalid"? To who? Again, who died and made you in charge of what is valid and not? You don't like the answers, that is too bad. Those are the answers you are going to get. I have explained everything to you more than twice, I am beginning to think you have some kind of learning or reading problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've read them all, and explained why every one of them is completely invalid. If you're not going to provide an answer to that question, I consider the discussion over. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have given you several reasons, which obviously you haven't read or don't like. Go back and read them and get back to me, cause right now you are just asking "why?" at everything even though you are getting answers. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right, look, the reason I keep asking is because you haven't answered. You can't just keep saying "they're important, we need to see what they look like, they're important" and expect people to believe you. This is the thing- if we're going to use non-free content, there must be a reason. This ties in with non-free content criterion 8- the use of non-free content must significantly increase reader understanding of the topic, and until you explain how these images are doing that, you're simply not going to get anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here we are back the continous "why?" question again. I am aware Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", but when the logos have to do with one station and one station alone and are used on one page, information that is important to the understanding of the history of that station, that makes them important. Now, please, don't ask "why?" again :S - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And why is that historical information so important? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, my reason is they add historical information to the page as I have said above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then I'll try the direct approach, with a statement. The logos cannot possibly increase the reader's understanding in any significant fashion for the simple reason that they are insignificant. Mean nothing. Zilch. Of zero interest. Without value. Every station has a logo and changes it periodically. If you could demonstrate that understanding some particular logo was actually an important part of understanding the station, you would then have to demonstrate that you couldn't create that understanding in text. After leaping over that hurdle, you would then have to do it again for the next one. And again, and again. The reason J Milburn keeps asking that question is because you seem to take the importance of these things for granted, and are unable to explain why these trivial things are non-trivial. Please understand the basis of the question, though: you have to demonstrate that, for example, the illustration of one particular Thames logo is actually important to understanding that particular Chicago station: that any reader of an article about that Chicago station would find his understanding of the station significantly lessened by the absence of the illustration, and that there was no reasonable way to plug that gap in words. Try answering that particular question, and then we can move on to the next. But just try that one for now.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- As I have said, it is easier to put a picture of the Thames logo then say, "it is an image of the city of London skyline next to the Thames river with a reflection of that skyline on the water. There is also the word "Thames" across the image in white lettering". Now....those two sentences are made unnecessary when I show this image. No need for 2 sentences, it is a picture everyone can see for themselves. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The easiest thing to do is omit it completely. No reason to discuss the river, no reason to discuss the city, because the logo isn't important. You keep explaining why it is easier to show a picture of the logo than describe it (which no one is disputing). What you fail to explain is why it is necessary to describe the logo at all. I would argue that you could have a very good understanding of a television station without having any idea what any of its logos looked like. So, try again: why will the reader of the article about the television station fail to understand the station without having detailed knowledge of this particular logo? And where in NFCC#8 did the word "easier" show up, anyway? If you make a convincing argument that knowledge of the logo is required, you then have to demonstrate that you cannot reasonably describe it. That's a long way from "easier". Once that's accomplished, you get that one image.—Kww(talk) 22:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I said this before and i will say it again, the logos do increase readers' understanding of the topic as they show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history. Powergate92Talk 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can shout that as loud as you like, it doesn't make it true. You still haven't explained why it's SO IMPERATIVE that "the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history" is shown. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let me ask you, why do you think it isn't imperative to show the station's call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout history? Why do you think it isn't necessary for that information to be shown. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I can see no reason to include it. I can see no reliable sources discussing it, and I can see no reason it should be assumed important by default. For instance, there's no need to show every cover with which a classic book has been published. In any case, the burden of proof lies with you, as the one wishing to include the content, to demonstrate its importance. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I also said this before and i will also say this again, WP:NFCC#8 doe's not say you need reliable sources discussing the logos, it says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Powergate92Talk 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a break from beating my wife and answer as well. I would agree that a history of call signs, network affiliations, slogans, and alternate titles is probably worthwhile. That can be expressed adequately in text.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, that ain't even funny. Either way, I have more pressing matters on my hands at the moment, so I can't play. I have a prolific vandal in need of a range block, so you all converse amongst yourselves, I will get back to you when I can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have you stopped beating your wife?, since you didn't seem to understand the reference.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, that ain't even funny. Either way, I have more pressing matters on my hands at the moment, so I can't play. I have a prolific vandal in need of a range block, so you all converse amongst yourselves, I will get back to you when I can. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I can see no reason to include it. I can see no reliable sources discussing it, and I can see no reason it should be assumed important by default. For instance, there's no need to show every cover with which a classic book has been published. In any case, the burden of proof lies with you, as the one wishing to include the content, to demonstrate its importance. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let me ask you, why do you think it isn't imperative to show the station's call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout history? Why do you think it isn't necessary for that information to be shown. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can shout that as loud as you like, it doesn't make it true. You still haven't explained why it's SO IMPERATIVE that "the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history" is shown. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- As I have said, it is easier to put a picture of the Thames logo then say, "it is an image of the city of London skyline next to the Thames river with a reflection of that skyline on the water. There is also the word "Thames" across the image in white lettering". Now....those two sentences are made unnecessary when I show this image. No need for 2 sentences, it is a picture everyone can see for themselves. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then I'll try the direct approach, with a statement. The logos cannot possibly increase the reader's understanding in any significant fashion for the simple reason that they are insignificant. Mean nothing. Zilch. Of zero interest. Without value. Every station has a logo and changes it periodically. If you could demonstrate that understanding some particular logo was actually an important part of understanding the station, you would then have to demonstrate that you couldn't create that understanding in text. After leaping over that hurdle, you would then have to do it again for the next one. And again, and again. The reason J Milburn keeps asking that question is because you seem to take the importance of these things for granted, and are unable to explain why these trivial things are non-trivial. Please understand the basis of the question, though: you have to demonstrate that, for example, the illustration of one particular Thames logo is actually important to understanding that particular Chicago station: that any reader of an article about that Chicago station would find his understanding of the station significantly lessened by the absence of the illustration, and that there was no reasonable way to plug that gap in words. Try answering that particular question, and then we can move on to the next. But just try that one for now.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
These logos are not simply some random smattering of non-free images, they represent a station's primary identity and how they communicated this to the viewing public at large over a particular era. Television is a visual medium and their value cannot be replaced by prose nor by a "free" version of the image. NFCC is based largely on two concepts; to promote "free" image use within Wikipedia and to protect the project from potential litigation. The latter issue is what Mike Godwin graciously took the time to address, to attempt to debate him seems to me a little counter-productive in working towards any solution. Furthermore to claim NFCC has no bearing or direct relation to fair use law and visa-versa ,grossly underestimates their relevance to the debate at hand. Tmore3 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone else mentions what Godwin said, their comments will be removed from my talk page. It doesn't matter. We're talking about the NFCC, which are stricter than fair use law. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- If all you took from my post was "Godwin", personally I am little insulted but more importantly am doubtful you want or are able to carry on a reasonable discussion on the matter with opposing points of view. Tmore3 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- You also mentioned non-free content criterion 1, which also has little to do with this discussion. You also misrepresented the goals of the NFCC (you missed the third major goal- keeping non-free content that is used to an absolute minimum- the important one with regards to this discussion) and, yes, misrepresented the importance of what Godwin said. The fact that we have deemed the image use "legal" is not of importance when we are considering whether the images meet our non-free content criteria. What do you want me to take from your post? J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- If all you took from my post was "Godwin", personally I am little insulted but more importantly am doubtful you want or are able to carry on a reasonable discussion on the matter with opposing points of view. Tmore3 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
This isn't Mega City One. This isn't down to what one admin does or doesn't think, whoever they are. This is Wikipedia, where we try to use community mechanisms to come to shared consensus views.
So, as I've just proposed at WP:MCQ, there is an defined venue for discussing questions of judgment when it comes to discussing the significance of NFC in articles. It is WP:Non free content review. So let's move the discussion there, advertise it more widely to get more of the community involved if we can; and get a team of experienced third-party mediators in, neutral from either side of the usual crowd at WP:NFC, to act as rapporteurs, channel the process, and make the final call.
Mike Godwin told us these images were legal. It's up to us to assess whether they are significant. That's a community decision, so let's take it to a community mechanism.
I suggest putting a time-limit on the process -- two or three weeks max -- and in the meantime letting the images stand, so those who object to them can point to what they object to, and those who see value in them can point to what they see value in.
Would that be acceptable? Jheald (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that, but we have images that have been CSD'd. That was 2 days ago. I would recommend that, during the discussion, those images are pulled from CSD. If the discussion leads that the images to be deleted, then they can be added back. But I think until then, they should be removed from CSD.
- I would also recommend that the link for the discussion be placed on WT:WPRS and WT:TVS as these are the two groups this would affect most. If those two things were done first, this would get off on the right foot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Neutralhomer. Powergate92Talk 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've wasted enough time with this nonsense already. I don't support some ridiculous centralised discussion over something we already know the answer to. "Debating" this issue is fine, but when it's the same nonsense over and over and over and over AND OVER again, I don't see the point. If we're having a centralised discussion, I strongly support the removal of bullshit comments. Examples are anything include the word "Godwin", and anything that says "these logos are important because they allow us to see what the historical logos look like" which, other than "I agree with Neutralhomer", seems to be all Powergate has said. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would propose that with comments like the ones above, J Milburn be put in some corner far away from the discussion as he has shown he can not use AGF in his comments here and won't elsewhere. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- What part of that comment is at all unreasonable or illogical? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I posted that comment a couple hours prior to my apology (which you can find on my talk page, see the talkback notice below)....is there anyway we can just leave this right here as a case of "agree to disagree"? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not going to drop the whole issue, but I'm more than happy to drop the fueding in this sub-thread. I will archive it now. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean drop the whole issue, I was meaning the feudin' and a-fussin' (sorry, let my "southern" show there). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not going to drop the whole issue, but I'm more than happy to drop the fueding in this sub-thread. I will archive it now. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I posted that comment a couple hours prior to my apology (which you can find on my talk page, see the talkback notice below)....is there anyway we can just leave this right here as a case of "agree to disagree"? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- What part of that comment is at all unreasonable or illogical? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Talkback July 29
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.