User talk:Bob247/Archive 3

Aquarelle sockpuppetry - no worry!

Bob,

No need to worry about Aquarelle being a sockpuppet of Hardouin - actually the idea is quite amusing : ) If you'll look to Aquarelle's talk page, you'll see that my greeting was was followed by a frantic "Look out for this guy!" message from the "possible puppet-ee"... but this past week's reverts the Paris article indeed were by Hardouin's puppets. It's amazing what the antics of one badly-behaved wikipedian can do to poison the editing atmosphere. Anyhow, cheers.

THEPROMENADER 11:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

a sockpuppet may well be warned by the main account to give the air of being real. Seen it before. --Bob 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You sound like Joe McCarthy...and this all based on the fact that I speak French ? --Aquarelle 07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Head banging

Yes, but it is only a couple people. -Eric ^(talk) 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob- I am at work now, and this is naughty. I'm new at this--what do I do, make my own statement, or comment on yours? If I make my own, is it appropriate that I just extract the essence of my posts and put them in a concise statement? Is there a time frame for these things? Thanks. -Eric ^(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it for the format--is the clock ticking?

Oh, now I see that the format has been changed. -Eric ^(talk) 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, hope I helped! -Eric ^(talk) 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

English term

Hi, Bob. I've read at glance the page you pointed to, but, to be honest, I don't speak French at all. I'm afraid I don't have capability of adding comments there. Really sorry. Basically, I agree with English terms usage in English wikipedia, as long as the foreign language word has exactly the same meaning. The simple example is that the message you posted in the WikiProject Indonesia talk. The provinsi or propinsi name is exactly equal with province, so no need to use the Indonesian word. However, when we translate one province: Nusa Tenggara Barat (in Indonesian language, Tenggara is southeast and Barat is west), we do not use West Southeast Nusa, but West Nusa Tenggara. It's because Nusa Tenggara is one specific region name. — Indon (reply) — 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

English words

Thanks for the heads up. Have you see this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations#Project_mediator_offer? English Subtitle 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded to the RfC there. - jc37 12:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Using English 2

I got your message a while back about the French terms and agreed with you but had nothing further to add. Are you concerned generally with supporting WP:UE or just in this case?

(and I loved the practical joke...)

—  AjaxSmack  08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just concerened with using the most commonly form terms possible where context/definition won't be changed. If this happens to be the English term, then we shouldn't be afraid to use it, which is the case here. We are already using English terms throughout wikipedia, but it is not standardised. I feel it should be and that stricter policy should be developed to implement this. --Bob 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fiji Rugby

Hi I was interested in asking you if you would like to be part of a project WP:RUFR, started by me but revamped with the help of Shudda. Its basically a workgroup regarding Fiji Rugby and it would be a great pleasure 2 have you Abroad.Just click on the above link and sign up..Thanx..ø~Cometstyles~ø^(talk)

Crusaders peer review

Hi, I've requested a peer review for Crusaders. Could everyone please take a look and help out? I'm trying to get the article up to Featured Article standard, and would like any feedback I can get. You can add any comments here. Thanks a lot! - Shudda ^talk 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages. Thanks.

As you may know, when you add new sections to talk pages like you did to create User_talk:Faustus_Tacitus#Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals, it would help if you used the + tab rather than simply editing the last conversation. When I saw you posted in User_talk:Faustus_Tacitus#Napoleon III, I thought you were replying to me. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco

Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream Nightscream 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied in agreement.

User:Kiwipete

Hello, Bob. Since this fellow seems to be your (overzealous) help, I suggest that you tell him to stop the Anglicisation immediately. Transforming thousands of articles without discussion; continuing to transform thousands of articles while even an WP:RFC is open on the affair, and even after having been warned, is quite another. I'm going to call admin attention to this, as it has gone quite too far. THEPROMENADER 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't care. --Bob 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing that you choose to be unreasonable. Very well then. THEPROMENADER 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't care about what he is doing, as it is simply repairing dab links. --Bob 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that he's consolidating your and his undiscussed widespread changes - while the case for change hasn't even been made yet. You are becoming not only unreasonable, but downright arrogant! Do change your attitude please. THEPROMENADER 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove that I know very well what he is thinking. I don't. I looked at a couple of diffs and I see but one change of a dab for Calvados department. I don't see anything wrong in disambiguating links, especially as the pages may lose the department qualifier anyway, meaning that the work will have to be undergone yet again. --Bob 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly why it should stop? Since what's to be done about the articles hasn't even been decided yet, he's only making more work for everyone! THEPROMENADER 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia user, I find redirects at the least annoying, and at the worst confusing. If any article names are changed in the future, I will gladly help in fixing up links so that they point to the new articles and not to redirect pages. Cheers, Kiwipete 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this, but there's no point in repairing links until the "linked to" page is in its final location; it is that very subject that is under discussion at the moment. THEPROMENADER 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:France screenshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:France screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your practical joke made me laugh :D —Remember the dot (t) 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AIDS refs

thanks for throwing in that AIDS ref for prophylactic therapy, you're always quick on the draw! cheers. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image source for Subtype.png

Hi Grcampbell. Could you possibly add a source for this image you've uploaded? Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John Bruton

Thanks. I'll look into it. - Thanks, Hoshie 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

image

Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed.--Patchouli 02:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no rational as to why it is irreplaceable. --Bob 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What can it be replaced with?--Patchouli 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A free image. You did not state that it was/is irreplaceable or why the image is required within the article at all. --Bob 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no other free image. I only see that you are cavilling and acting like a Ph.D. in history & politics.--Patchouli 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Have you exhausted all other possibilities? On another note, the source of the photo is also false... you may have found it on that website, but that is not the source of the photo. --Bob 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:14 (UTC)

fair use

Why fair use images are no longer welcomed on wikipedia ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

T'Pol image

I am disputing your claim that the main image at T'Pol can be replaced. It cannot - it is an image of a fictional character being used to illustrate a fictional character. Screenshots or other promotional images would be no less or no more free than this one. I invite yiu to please provide an alternative. (I am of the opinion that that onus must be placed on the nominators of said images to provide a source for a replacement). 23skidoo 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you would be wrong on that assumption. Stealing others work and using it here under "fair use", the onus is on you. --Bob 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Undid vandalism by Maveric149 (talk)

Excuse me? How is that vandalism - I was asked to give a rationale and I did. --mav 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple. The tag explicity states Do not remove this tag. You did, ergo vandalism. --Bob 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism requires an intent to cause harm. Are you a mind reader? I thought I was being asked to give a fair use rationale - so I did. If by doing so I removed a template I shouldn't have then I apologize. You should instead assume good faith. --mav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The tag explicity states Do not remove this tag.. You have been a Wikipedian since 1 January 2002 and are an admin. You should know better. Hiding behind good faith when you know the rules is bad faith editing. --Bob 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And one of the most important rules is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and the fact that first and foremost this is a project about creating an encyclopedia. Only working to undo the work of others is not furthering that goal. I can see from your contribs that that is almost all you are doing. Shame on you. --mav

Yes, that is all I do, you are so very correct. Sigh. Quite pathetic. I have only just started tagging unfree images for deletion that do not fit Wikipedia criteria, and quite frankly, could get the wiki shut down for copyright theft. Yes, I don't want to further Wikipedia... Shame on me. --Bob 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While I can see that your intent is good, I think you are being overzealous. Fair use is something that we should take full advantage of; so long as the work we do here is also fair use in a more commercialized context. That said, making sure our fair use rationale is solid, is a worthwhile thing. Just please understand that others are here to create content - they are not your enemy. --mav 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration - Anglicisation of French administrative terms

Bob - I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms. Please leave your comments. -- NYArtsnWords 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-commerical creative commons licensing

I've noticed that you've updated the licensing info for Walter_Lewin.jpg. I understand that Wikipedia does not allow images licensed in this way; is there a rationale behind this written down in an article? Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, so why is this a problem? Rglovejoy 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated the license as specified on their copyright page. If this means that it cannot be used in Wikipedia, then that is not my problem, all I did was correctly, as far as I could tell, license the image. I also included a link to their copyright page so that anyone may look. As to the whys? I don't know, sorry. --Bob 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of alternative medicine

Hi, you tagged it for speedy deletion as an article that's been transwikied based on a prior deletion discussion. Since I can't find the discussion, I removed the speedy tag. If you'd point me to the discussion, I'd be happy to comply with the results, but having been transwikied isn't a deletion reason on itself (especially in the case of glossaries, since from what I know, they're more often kept than deleted in afd). - Bobet 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that the template had been deleted before because it hadn't been fully transwikied, now that it has I reinserted the template. --Bob 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes you made to AIDS article

You partly reverted a change in the Alternative Hypothesis section citing "restoring referenced accurate info that was censored". You must be referring to a link to the Duesberg Journal - but this wasn't censored, just re-ordered to a lower paragraph. You are now the third person to attempt to revert my change - both of whom have since re-reverted themselves. I must apologise for my sloppy edit which caused the confusion. Can you please re-revert? Hne123 09:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you!

Hey Bob, thanks so much for the barnstar! (I only just found it then!). My talk page is always clogged with bot messages and other stuff, so I never saw it until today, but thanks very much, I really appreciate it a lot. Great work on the Union template as well, it looks really good. Thanks again Bob! Cheers. Cvene64 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigers

Hey, I dont really mind which one is used. The current one seems to be used on official websites and stuff. Cheers. Cvene64 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Countries in Heineken Cup / Parker Pen cup

You forgot Italy. Also Romania have not participated in the Heineken Cup since the first year, do they need a mention? Spain and Portugal have had entrants in the Parker Pen in the past, if Romania deserves a mention for the Heineken Cup then they do for the Parker Pen.GordyB 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Kit body fiji2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kit body fiji2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Please stop tagging images as "Replacable fair use" if you do not understand how fair use works. You have been tagging images from television shows that are no longer in production as 'replaceable fair use'. This is wrong. I also note you have been labelling changes made to your errors as 'vandalism'; this is not acceptable. I will be watching your contributions to ensure this does not continue. Proto ► 13:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. If you condone theft, then so be it. Multiple images have already been deleted for exactly that reason. If the uploader has a problem with the tagging, then there exists a procedure to dispute the dispute. Removing the tag is not the correct procedure. If you are unable to understand this, then have fun chasing peoples edits. --Bob 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As the reviewing admin, removing the tag is exactly the correct procedure. If you still disagree, you can then take the image to IFD. Proto ► 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to read what that top userbox on your page states. By responding to discussion of any errors in judgement you may have made with hostility, you're doing that little smiley face a grave injustice. Please don't let down the smiley face. Proto ► 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through the last hundred or so images you've tagged with "replaceable fair use". Of those, most are correctly tagged. the ones that are not seem to be those of characters in TV shows. It is usually impossible (or virtually impossible) to obtain fully free images of such characters - they must be either promotional images or screenshots. Particularly when the show is no longer broadcast. You also tagged one of a model from 40 years ago as replaceable. In articles such as those of models who were famous a long time ago primarily due to their looks, an image of them in their youth would be reasonable to illustrate why they became famous, and couldn't be replaced with an equivalent free image (as they do not look the same 40 years later, due to the ravages of time we'll all suffer from, sadly). Does that make sense? Proto ► 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Most of the playboy models that I have tagged have all been deleted correctly. Theft of an image just because we are too lazy to look for, or contact the people for, does not justify fair use. Fictional characters also fall into this category. If we are to simply state that the actor was in a role and show just an image of the character, with no discernable features/makeup, then the screenshot does not justify fair use as it is not a requirement to better understand the article. If we are to look at Dorn as Worf and discuss the makeup required, then an image is justified. If we talk about Marg Helgenberger portraying Catherine Willows, then the image is not required for the article, makes it pretty, but that is irrelevant. It does not, in my opinion, justify the use of the image. There is also debate on this point, so I know that I am not the only one who thinks like this. Furthermore, you state that my tagging is errored, I do not believe that it is, and many others agree with my tagging. If an uploader removes the tags I place, that IS vandalism and I am correct in asserting that as fact. You state that I am in error. Please provide proof that I am incorrect in this assertation especially when it is carried out by admins and users on images that are ultimately deleted by other admins such as User:Angr who agree with my assertation that the images do not meet fair use. Also provide proof that when I am attacked on my user page I am not allowed to refute the charges made. --Bob 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. It is not vandalism. Vandalism is an edit deliberately made in bad faith. If you do not agree with someone changing a tag you put on there, then that does not immediately make it vandalism, and labelling them all as such is seriously eroding any assumptions of good faith people will make about your actions. If you think the image ought to be deleted, and someone has reasonably dissented, which is everyone's right with speedy deletion templates, then you take the image to Wikipedia:Images for deletion and engage the community for further discussion. You do not revert the change and label it "vandalism". That is lazy, rude, and against one of Wikipedia's basic tenets, to assume good faith. Proto ► 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

When a user fails to follow procedure, despite having knowledge of said procedure, that is to add another template ({{Replaceable fair use disputed}}) disputing the dispute, then it is vandalism. One cannot assume good faith when the user in question knows procedure and ignores it. If the closing admin removes it, then that is ok, then one takes it to IFD, removing the rfu tag before is vandalism. Something which you seem to condone. --Bob 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use 2

I noticed you put tag this image (Image:Csi sofiacurtis.jpg) as a "Replacable fair use".But it's a TV screenshot. TV / Film screenshots are not replaceable. Please read WP:FUC and understand fair use work. --NAHID 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the conditions on fair use and apply them. Theft is not something we should be condoning if want a freely usable publication. Just because something is a screenshot, copyright still applies to the images captured. --Bob 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use: to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. The image you linked to above, I believe, fails this. It makes the article pretty, but that is no justification. --Bob 02:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Templates

Hello Iam just writing to ask you as to why you are deletoing the tamplates I have craeted because the reason you have give isnt justified. You should have looked at the facts befor trying to delete something and you should have asked me be4 trying to delete them. I dont agree with your reason for deleting the templates because as I had stated on the Temp 4 Deletion section these temps are to be kept for future reference and tables take a lot of space and is bit disruptive and Templates were neatly constructed and could be easily edited and anywayz I just joined in November and I was trying to do something better for all the rugby related articles which you and some of the other editors who have been here for a long time were not able 2 do and so please next time you want to delete something which you havent created pliz notify the person be4 tagging it for deletion ...--Cometstyles 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I notified you at the same time. Tables like those that you created have been deleted previously, not in rugby, but in football. Also, the templates are single use templates, something that is generally not what template namespace are for. Numerous templates have been previously deleted for the same reason. --Bob 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My Computer crashed 4 days ago so I want able 2 come online and If my computer didnt get fixed I would not have been able 2 comment on its deletion but I dont think it is single use only because I was going to use it in the history section of Super Rugby just after the season ends and now I wont be able to do that and I dont want to use the table because it just takes to much space which would just increase the size of the article causing it to be divided and I dont want that to happen but whatever suits you best..--Cometstyles 02:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The templates in question have nothing to do with that article... --Bob 02:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

You also tagged some TV / Film shows screenshot wrongly that was taken by uploader from the particular scene NOT from an Website. You may check your contribution history. I'm not going to mention them all. Do you judge them as Theft!! (that was not taken from website) Understand, an user can take screenshot from an film or TV by himself. And the screenshot images can't be produced again. Therefore, we can't judge them as theft and replaceable image.--NAHID 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The other screenshot images you tried to tag they show no longer in production.And no need to use fairuse tag. Some of the tag's (That you put on image page wrongly) already been removed and they should be. Understand the matter and avoid wrong justification.

A sreenshot is still copyrighted by the people who made the production. In my opinion, theft of images that portray simply an actor in a role with no mention of character development or portrayal within the article does not justify free use. If there is discussion about the characters makeup etc required for a role, then there may be justification, otherwise, we are simply stealing peoples work. Even if the screenshot is found on a website, copyright does not belong to that website but to the production company that made the show. The secondary website is also stealing peoples work, and if it is a gallery, and they do it without permission, is probably illegal. --Bob 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"In your opinion". Because it is your opinion, and not set in stone policy, then it is reasonable to remove the tag. Instead of removing it, your next step is to take the image to images for deletion, not accuse the dissenting party of vandalism, and edit war over the tag. Proto ► 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is reasonable to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, which is the correct procedure. It is unreasonable to remove the tag without follwoing procedure. Doing so, when not the closing admin but the uploader, in full knowledge of the procedure IS vandalism. We should not condone this type of behaviour. --Bob 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob don't depend on just your opinion regarding on the image than the policy. Assume good faith and don't be overzealous --NAHID 07:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the images uploaded for Bruce Hornsby

• I'd like to assume good faith with your intentions, Bob, but it is starting to seem that your concerns are only with getting credit for reporting potential copyright violations rather than actually improving Wikipedia. Using Image:TreyAnastasio.jpg (please consult) as a template as well as several other images of other bands found off of the jam band category page, all of which used Flickr as an image source, I attempted to correct your complaints about the licensing on my previous images by replacing the images with images I believed to be fair use based upon numerous examples of Flickr-sourced images on other Wikipedia articles. If I have mislabeled or misattributed something, as Wikipedia is meant to be a COMMUNITY based upon GOOD FAITH, I would appreciate your assistance in correcting the situation. DO NOT cut-and-paste vague instructions...you have taken time, repeatedly, to question and individually seek-out my image uploads...now take the time to help resolve this by helping me improve the article in a manner that meets your and Wikipedia's standards. (I will expect a reply on my talk page, or I will seek guidance from administrators, reporting your behavior for review). BoaTeeth 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please post an external link to an image deemed to be suitable for inclusion in the Bruce Hornsby article, along with a template for how to properly source that image, on my user talk page. If you are acting in good faith by individually seeking out all of my image uploads, then offering this sort of assistance is a reasonable request on my part. BoaTeeth 17:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are wrong. The source that you have given for the images you uploaded do not state that they are {{cc-by-2.0}}. You have incorrectly tagged them. The source for Image:TreyAnastasio.jpg states that it is licensed under a {{Noncommercial}}, thus the tagging on wikipedia is incorrect, as stated on that image page, and it should also perhaps be deleted. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am assuming good faith in that you are unaware of copyright image policy on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. The onus is not on myself to provide replacements for unfree images that you have uploaded. If you do not wish your talk page filled with instructions on how to deal with your uploads, perhaps you could correctly tag the images when you upload them. As you are obviously familiar with Flickr, there is a search option with which you could find free images. --Bob 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are the three new images from Flickr pegged for speedy deletion. This doesn't make sense. I found them via the means listed, and they are available (as per CC guidelines as well as CC copyright info listed on the Flickr site) for fair use. From your note on my Talk page I assumed that you had clarified my tagging, not pegged the images for deletion, so I guess I'm confused as to what your note meant. I appreciate your help. If you have the chance, please check all of the album covers you've called into question. I've attempted to correct them as per your requests. Obviously they are all being used to illustrate the album in question. (I'm sorry to crowd your talk page, will it be possible for you to delete these passages once we've left this issue behind us?). Thank you. BoaTeeth 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the images are licensed at the source under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license. You uploaded them under an Attribution 2.0 license. which was clearly an error on your part. You should verify the copyright tag for your images before uploading them. Images of a living person, like those you uploaded also fail fair use requirements. I retagged them all correctly using the correct license as specified at the source, which is {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}. This is a redirect for {{Db-ccnoncom}}, a speedy delete tag. Images should be speedy deleted as they should never have been uploaded to wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags before uploading anything else. --Bob 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this accusation, a new low? I've given up on uploading images. You win. BoaTeeth 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about the fair use for club emblems on user pages and other. However, and not to be rude by any means, there is no need for your use of words in the Pro D2 considering that I was completely unaware of this. I'm not on Wiki that much. Rather, I'm usually taking numerous photos and releasing them for free use here. I understand that you want to make sure nothing on this website is in violation, that's great you have the time for this. However, you could be more patient and/or respectful towards other users that although do not help with editing as much as you do, make important contributions to this fine website as well.

• Also, please keep watch of user pages. I've seen many being edited, including mine, by unknown IP addresses. Such as where someone changed personal information I had listed. Happy editing, Grcampbell! Kal 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't think the word erroneous was bad... but nevermind. Your photos... I have seen quite a few and they are excellent, keep up the good work. --Bob 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From User:Snidleysnide

I've deleted my previous posting here, which asked for advice on the tagging. You made no effort to respond, and I have resolved the issue separately with an experienced image uploader. I've just posted the following to the sock puppet accusation page that you've started, and I thought I might make certain to share it here as well:

"Given the high level of protest surrounding the image uploads to the Bruce Hornsby article, I've also followed up upon my initial request at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [1], corresponding on talk pages with User:Mecu. As a result of these correspondences, I've independently reconfirmed the use of the images as well as the copyright owner's approval of the tagging of the images (as released to Public Domain) and the copyright owner's approval of the phrasing of the "reason given" passage of the Public Domain tagging. Although, as I mentioned before, I am a relatively inexperienced image uploader, I have been a frequent editor of Wikipedia via anonymous IP address. The creation of my account, corresponding so closely to the uploading of images, IS due to the fact that I created this account EXPRESSLY to upload images (something that cannot be done from an anonymous IP address). I can understand the suspicion that this has caused; however, given the fact that, other than the initial mistagging (which was an honest mistake), I have striven to very completely, very ethically, and very politely document the uploading of these images, always seeking advice from more experienced editors. The images have, as of now, been properly documented, and two separate notices have been sent to m:OTRS (one for the permissions, one confirming the tagging and the language of the tagging). Whatever issues Bob has with BoaTeeth, or whatever issues Bob has with the presence of images in the Bruce Hornsby article, I would appreciate being unbothered with as they do not concern me. Snidleysnide 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

I've also been advised by User:Mecu that m:OTRS frequently takes longer to respond and ticket image pages than the one week timeline stated on the instructions for Requesting/Confirming permissions, so, in the interim, I would ask you to await their response rather than cluttering the discussion pages of the images further with unwarranted accusations. You can also feel free to independently reconfirm the status of the images on your own, by following the souce information listed on each image and by contacting the copyright holder yourself. While I am sure your police work against copyright violations, including your recent work in correspondence with User:BoaTeeth, is very admirable and very helpful to maintaining the strong ethical mission of Wikipedia, your involvement in my image uploading has been more of a nuisance. You jumped the gun, so to speak. I would appreciate it if you would return to working on images that are in copyright violation, as opposed to the ones I have uploaded, that, although they are pending ticket addition, are obviously above bar. Thank you for your attention. Best of luck with your future edits. Snidleysnide 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Waisale Serevi and rugger template

Hey Bob, you seem to know heaps about templates and stuff. I was wondering if you could look at the {{rugger}} template in Waisale Serevi's page. If you look at the national teams, the teams Fiji B, and Fiji XV are getting split up, with the B or XV below the Fiji. Is this because of something I'd done wrong regarding putting the names in, or is there a prob with the template itself? I have no idea you see! Also, good work with those positional templates, they'll save me so much time! - Shudda ^talk 10:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:WhiteStarLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WhiteStarLogo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar

Hello Bob, can you experiment with {{Tnavbar/Sandbox}} a bit and verify that it's going to do what you want? Here's an example of what I mean:

Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, no need to do any more tweaking. One question. Once the changes are integrated into the {{tnavbar}}, how will the function be accessible on {{Navbox generic}}, {{Navbox generic with image}} etc? Will the optional parameter be integrated into these templates? --Bob 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that'll have to worked into those templates... that shouldn't be a problem. (→Netscott) 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just so we're clear if a talk page exists then the talk page link is always going to be purple. I can change that too if you'd prefer. There's one other user - User:Bluerain who I'm waiting to hear from and once I hear back that the changes are good to go I'll submit them. (→Netscott) 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the talk page remains purple, then on some templates it will be invisible... Sorry, my cursory glance didn't pick up the ifexist parameter... All should be same colour... For instance, there is want for {{Rugby union in New Zealand}} to remain black with white writing, reflecting the national colours of the sport there. I know that the show/hide button is in purple, but I suppose that is a CSS style thing that would need someone with deeper powers to fix, anyways, if the t was purple, it would be tough to see. Could you fix that? --Bob 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've modified it accordingly to allow for fontcolor modification of existing talk page links. At this point I'm just going to wait a day or two for User:Bluerain to respond to verify this as well. (→Netscott) 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob, User:David Kernow has now implemented my changes. Do you want me to go ahead and take a look at integrating these Tnavbar changes into these other templates? (→Netscott) 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob, I've updated all of the concerned {{Tnavbar-rugby}} templates. You might consider {{db-author}}ing Tnavbar-rugby now. (→Netscott) 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugby union player templates

Hey, I was under the impression that {{rugger}} was the template all Rugby union biographies were supposed to use. Is this not true? - Shudda ^talk 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been renamed {{Infobox Rugby biography}}. It wasn't me who renamed it, but there you go. using rugger in the template on player articles will still work though, as it is a redirect to {{Infobox Rugby biography}}. --Bob 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was it renamed? - Shudda ^talk 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the request on the talk page, talk about a waste of peoples' time. - Shudda ^talk 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Love to help

I'm browsing through the random article when this Royal High Corstorphine RFC appears up, I think I want to help this transform, but I may need someone who is a fan of this and knows rugby union very well, can you be of any assistance, please?? Rakuten06 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FC Barcelona

Can you make the new Barcelona home/away kits? Here's the link [2] and [3]. Thanks.AJSDA115 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Question?

I have a question, can you help me? Please get back to me, thank you. AJSDA115 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between Template:ru and Template:rugbybox

Hi, it looks like you have encountered the same problem I did when trying to use {{ru}} and {{ru-rt}} for match results with {{rugbybox}}. For some reason, rugbybox is different from {{footballbox}}, {{fieldhockeybox}}, etc. in that it uses an embedded template transclusion. That led to all sorts of wierdness, such as the need to create templates just to put in text strings like "Winner of semi-final 1". I am working to remove all that, and I created Template:rugbybox2 as an intermediate step. I think that is a better approach than adding new "nohome" and "noaway" parameters to rugbybox and having those non-standard parameter names used instead of the familiar "home" and "away". Ultimately, all of the "XXXru" templates will be replaced fully by {{ru}}, and at that point, rugbybox2 and rugbybox can merge, and all the wikicode using just "home" and "away" can remain untouched. Thanks, Andrwsc 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actuallu working on a way to merge the wrugbybox with rugbybox, thus using the nohome parameters as it is easier to search and replace. Either way would work, there is really no diff. as one would have to go back into each article and replace rugbybox2 with rugbybox, or nohome with home. Both would work, and wrugbybox already uses the optional parameters. --Bob 19:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw Template:Wrugbybox for the first time. Why is it needed vs. a single template? There doesn't seem to be any women's-specific content in the template. I note that other sports use a single template for both men's and women's results, so I'm not sure why there are two for rugby union.

Anyway, as for the whole template thing, I guess I thought it would be much simpler to find&replace "rugbybox" with "rugbybox2" than to introduce new parameters and have editors get them entrenched in articles. I suppose either way, once all the "XXXru" templates have been orphaned, we will need to update all the match template transclusions one way or another. Andrwsc 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

{subst:di-no source-notice|1=Rugbyrussia.gif}} Lyrl^Talk _C 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page request

Just thought you might like to know that I’ve made a request for France national rugby union team to appear on the main page on Sep 7th. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests Buc 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby union national team Improvement Drive

For the 2007 Rugby World Cup WikiProject Rugby union is launching an Improvement Drive for national rugby union teams; specifically those participating in the Rugby World Cup.

We need your help! Here is what you can do:

• Adopt a national rugby union team article and collaborate with other members to improve it.
• Find, create and upload free images that will help improve these articles.
• Copy-edit, reference, and expand articles when and where you can.
• Promote the project and encourage others to join.

The World Cup is fast approaching and these articles are going to get a lot more hits during the tournament. It would be great if we could have them at a high standard!

For more information see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page here.

Shudde ^talk 05:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please revert changes to Template:Rugby union in Scotland

Hi there. I'd like to request that you change back Template:Rugby union in Scotland, which I have just yesteday finished updating and finishing. Only to find it's effectively been smashed up. The previous design was that way for a reason, and it's really depressing to spend hours working on loads of pages (I've effectively had to rewrite the entire domestic scene, it was years out of date) only to find that it's been 'standardized' even though this doesn't fulfil the needs of the Scottish rugby section. They way I'd laid it out contained all the necessary data (note I haven't built the Cup pages yet, do it at weekend).

I'm relatively new to major editing, at least as a signed-up member, and don't know how to revert it to how it was properly. HibeeJibee

All rugby union templates are in the process of being harmonized. It has not been smashed up, but divided into different templates. --Bob 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right and it was discussed about whether Scottish rugby was to be harmonized was it? It hasn't been harmonized at all. Under the original system we had: links to all the national teams (the age-grades could have been added), now that has been altered; we had DIRECT links to the pro-teams. We had a PROPER AND COMPLETE summary of competitions. Why you should think it OK to come in and replace it with something infinetely inferior, in my opinion, is beyond me because only in YOUR opinion is yours better - in which case the status quo should have been retained. We don't need multiple, short-of-substance template boxes.

I'm pretty annoyed that I devote a considerable amount of my time to developing the pages, and the templates, into something approaching a reasonable state, and then someone comes in out of the blue and starts adjusting things to a worse situation.

Maybe once we have plenty of rugby union nations up to standard someone should demand 'harmonization'. Just now its madness. HibeeJibee

This was discussed a while back and people wanted shorter, less fat templates. This is what is being done. No relevant information is being lost. You didn't really change that much in the template itself. In fact, it is very similar to that done for football teams. And I agree, it was madness, as there was no harmonization. Now, there will be with one simple template from which everything will be worked. However, good work with the articles. --Bob 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

However, last time I looked this wasn't football...it was rugby union. But I'm clearly wasting my time as you just want to have it your way. I was, of course, stupid to consider that the fact that I'm the only person, in seemingly years, to take any kind of interest in updating the Scottish rugby section would be of any relevance. I'm not prepared to get into some sort of tit-for-tat situation of reverts, because to be frank I'm new to editing on here and don't have the time or the patience to get into that. I'm just fed-up to have spent time making something good to have some, IMO autocrat, changing it all about.

This isn't a thing about changing 'my work', you could have added the new links (e.g. Schoolboys) to the existing template. I've no information on the new pages you've created, but I do have information on the Cups and on Caledonian Reds. I'm pretty convinced that the new pages will never get done, no-one has shown an interest in Scottish domestic rugby on here but myself.

No one in Scotland has asked for less fat templates, the template was well organised, neat, concise and had links to all the vital aspects, instead of 'using a template to go to a page to use a template to go to a page', as is regularly required now.

If you're going to steamroller you're way through go ahead. Going to take over completing and keeping up to date the Scotland domestic information? Got much info on the 2nd XVs, universities or Cups? Cos I don't think I'll do it if it'll be like this.

I'm reverting the template to as it was, so I can finish my articles as I have planned out on paper if I want, which will be soon if at all. I realise that you're coming from the point of view of wanting to 'harmonize' but its just total craziness IMO.

There is no point whatsoever harmonizing if the new plan is just, frankly, worse. But guess I'm beat to I'll leave it at that. HibeeJibee —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the template in its reverted state, by taking off the clubs, and adding Youth and Schools links. Feel free to add other links if they are important and achieveable. I'd like to think we could get by with the template in its current state, at least temporarily i.e. for a few months, and postpone any confrontation. I'm not prepared to keep adding to the Scottish rugby section if its going to get adjusted unreasonably, so I'm hopeful that (as I'm the only person to take any apparent interest in updating the Scottish section) this can work. Go ahead with the club lists, they are a good idea IMO. HibeeJibee 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rugby templates

Hi, it looks like we were working on the same set of templates today. My intent was to replace the flag rendering implementation from [[Image:Flag of {{{countryflag}}}.svg|40px|centre]] to use the standard flagicon template, and to remove the hardcoded [[Image:Flag of Ireland rugby.svg]] (with an "irishflag" parameter) and instead use the flag variant parameter to flagicon. I think the transition is complete, thanks to your help! The other big benefit is that now every instance of the Irish rugby flag is rendered by the rugby parameter to the standard flag templates, so once the current edit war over whether to use or File:Irelands Rugby Flag.svg is concluded, a single edit to Template:Country data Ireland will change all instances! This is good. Andrwsc 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

now all we have to do is find a way of rendering flags for the British Lions and the Pacific Islanders teams using the flagicon template. --Bob 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

About those flags... Are they real, or just a wikipedia creation, as a placeholder to match other teams that do have flags? We don't want to contradict Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles#Inventing new flags and using non-flag stand-ins, I don't think. Andrwsc 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They are a combination of the flags of the nations that compose the teams - therefore, they are real flags, just four flags in the case of the Lions and three in the case of the Islanders laid out next to each other in a single image. I don't think anyone believes that they are actualt flags, merely a composite of a number of flags together in one image. --Bob 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well I think the best approach might be to update the team template so that the three or four true flags can be shown on the bottom row, rather than showing the "combo flags" only. That might also re-emphasize the multi-national nature of those two teams. What do you think? Andrwsc 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)