User talk:Meegs/Archive 7

This is my talk archive. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page.

User talk:Meegs	2005 Nov →	2006 Feb →	2006 Apr →	2006 May →	2006 Jun →	2006 Aug →	2006 Oct →	2007 Jan →	2007 Apr →	2009 Jun →

Re:Fair use MLB images

Hey, I just wanted to tell you that all 100ish of the MLB.com images that I uploaded have been deleted. Thanks for telling me about the problem in the first place. --Nishkid64 23:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, and congratulations on your adminship. Best ×Meegs 12:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did Category:Wikipedians from Texas get deleted after all?

At the following page, back in August — Categories for deletion-Wikipedians from Texas you posted the following:

"The result of the debate was void. Mike Selinker is apparently preparing a mass nomination of some kind. Discussion can begin once he posts it. ×Meegs 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedians from Texas" However, I note that the category has, in fact, been deleted. Given that a deleted category doesn't have a history tab, I am a bit confused as to how to track down whether someone went through the legitimate process or not, and also whether it was deleted outright or merged with something else or renamed. How do I best find out what happened to this? Lawikitejana 07:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the category was merged, along with Native Texan users, to Category:Wikipedians born in Texas, into a CfD discussion that began later that day (#Wikipedians by location). ×Meegs 11:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when tracking down what happened to deleted pages, the best place to start is the logs. The deleting administrator usually indicates the reason for the deletion there. Regards ×Meegs 11:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer_Connelly

There is a discussion of the fair use assertment of an image going on for this page. Your comments on the talk page would be much appreciated. note:This message has been sent to all recent registered editors of the article, less vandal fighters — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright violations

Hello. I was wondering if you could provide me with some guidance on how to handle an image copyright problem I stumbled upon. The recently registered user Native Boy has uploaded over a dozen photos in the past few weeks [1]. The first six images were deleted because they did not have any copyright tags, however all of the photos uploaded since October 1 were tagged with the GNU free license. At least one of these GNU-tagged images appears to have been taken directly from a commercial website selling copies of the image. I sent an email to the site's webmaster seeking clarification that the image has not been released into the public domain, but my suspicion is that all of the user's contributions have been tagged as GNU just to get around wikipedia's copyright rules. Once the commercial site confirms that their photo is still under copyright, I will tag the image on wikipedia with Nothanks-sd, however I am not sure what to do about the other ten images. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec. Thanks for spotting these. The ones that do not name the copyright holder (e.g. Image:Okc dwntwn.jpg, which only includes {{GFDL}}), tag with {{subst:nsd}}). The ones tagged {{GFDL-self}}, list at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images; the user is likely either the creator of all of the photos, or none of them, so list all of the images as a single entry along with the evidence for the one that you found on the website. Leave the user a quick note on their talk page asking that they comment on the situation on the PUI page. Let me know if I can help with any of this, and thanks again. ×Meegs 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting to note that while Native Boy has not replied to queries or added any license information on the uploaded photos, when OrphanBot removed the images in question from various articles, 66.138.6.34 had them all re-added in under six hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this happens a lot. Orphanbot will probably remove them again, but if not, the administrator will edit the articles before deleting the images. This is also probably a good indication that the user does not intend to provide the images' information. ×Meegs 08:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same user re-uploaded three of the same exact images today (all tagged GFDL), including the one of Oklahoma City that still has the owners copyright watermark. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've described what I've done under your ANI listing. ×Meegs 09:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. I had tagged Image:Aerial okc.jpg for speedy deletion because when I contacted the image's owner last month, they requested that it be deleted from wikipedia. Please let me know if I am being over zealous. The image copyvio process is pretty new to me, and I want to make sure I am doing things right. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've mentioned that you contacted the copyright holder before. Would you add that to the PUI listing? I'd moved it from speedy to PUI in order to keep it together with all of the others, but now I've gone ahead and deleted it. Thanks for staying on this. ×Meegs 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help with Images?

Howdy Meegs! We have had a brief encounter or two in the past, such as here, dealing with images. Recently, I have been trying to help in non-admin capacity until I reach that distinction. I currently use WP:VP2 & Discussion Manager, I assess articles on projects I am apart of, and do new page patrol (trying not to WP:BITE). One particular area I have been drawn to more lately has been images. Anyway, I was wondering if you have any tips or such for me in how I can help. I have found this list, which I have been patrolling/checking for such stuff as copyright status, fair use tags, proper sourcing, ect. Anything else I can do? Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi moe, I do remember you. Category:Images with no copyright tag is a never-ending source of work. Many of the images there need to be tagged as no source or no license, but some can be properly tagged as PD, freely licensed, or — very very occasionally — fair use. There's sometimes some research involved, but it's not really the most interesting job. When you find an user with problematic uploads, its also a good idea to look at their upload log to look for similar problems. Depending on the nature of the problem and whether or not the user is still active, a talk page query, no source/no license tags, or a bulk listing on WP:PUI or WP:IFD may be appropriate. You can also, as I've done for a long time, keep an eye out for unfree images that do not meet criterion #1 of WP:FUC. They are particularly bad because they discourage the contribution of free images their subjects. ×Meegs 03:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield Article

Hi Meegs! Just seeking your opinion on something! This article page St George's Quarter scheme has been created as a spin off from the Huddersfield page by new well meaning editors. Do you think this, currently 1 line, article merits a seperate article page? I'm also a bit concerned that the two new editors are uploading copyright images from other websites. I've put a query up on the wiki help desk about them but would like a second opinion. Richard Harvey 20:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I think you did the right thing proposing the article's deletion. That author's uploads are both on track for deletion too, pending additional information. In instances where you doubt the validity of an image's free license label, WP:PUI is sometimes also a useful mechanism too. ×Meegs 02:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Incidentally could you take a look at [[2]] I have put a 4 image gallery on it, using my commons images. For some odd reason, that I cannot understand, the 4th image will not appear, though it is viewable if used as a seperate image external to the gallery. I have re-uploaded the image to commons with a smaller file size, the original was around 2Mb, but this has not had any affect. Richard Harvey 11:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I played around with it, but couldn't get it to work inside the gallery. My next guess is that it has to do with the ampersand in the filename. ×Meegs 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the ampersand is not the problem.

The size of a large image does affect its load time, as you suggested in your summary when you reuploaded the photo. When an article is loaded, the server sends reduced versions of the images with exactly the resolution that's needed. So, I can request a version of our problem image with a width of 400 pixels, 180 pixels, or 119 pixels. For some reason, though, it seems unable to create the 120 pixel version that's needed in a gallery. Maybe it failed once, doesn't know it, and is resending the same cached version, or maybe it is failing again and again. ×Meegs 17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is a cache problem: the system wasn't able to process your first upload for some reason, and is continuing to use the failed 120-pixel version that it created before you made the second upload. It has no problems with 119 pixels because no one requested that size until after you made the second upload. It should work itself out in a few hours or days. ×Meegs 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at least now I know it is not me! I seem to have the same problem with a few others too. As per this gallery [:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richard_Harvey/Photo_Gallery]. There are images with ampersands that work and some that do not, as well as non working ones without ampersands. Richard Harvey 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Sierra Eagle picture

Hey Meegs. I saw your comments about the deletion of the eagle picture for La Sierra High school. I'm actually an alumnus from the school, and the logo is painted on the side of our gym and is on most of the merchandise. Would it help if I scanned those for the article? (I wasn't able to look at the original eagle picture that was used for the LS page because it has been deleted.) Please let me know. :) Roarke Stratton 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roarke. I've replied at Talk:La Sierra High School. ×Meegs 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image issues

Thanks Meegs, I am very thankful to get such notices and suggestion. I have made some appropriate changes to the. I am very sorry about that I could not respond when I was at the wikibreak and after that I simply archived the paegs without noticing such issues. Thanks for knowing about WP:FUC too. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyam. To tell you the truth, the edits that you just made don't help to clarify the situations. It's important for other people to be able to verify the copyright status of images. It's usually a good idea too add as much information as you have about an image, its creation, and its copyright status to the description page, in addition to the copyright template. About the edits:

What is the deal with Image:Shyam Bahadur.jpg? First you wrote 'available on www.khatushyamji.com', then you deleted that and stated simply {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Then, just now, you made it {{PD-art}} and then {{FAL}}. If this last version is correct, you need to identify the artist and give some evidence that they have agreed to the Free Art License.
Why do you think that Image:SherKhanNasher.jpg is in the public domain? Incidentally, {{PD}} is obsolete to encourage us to provide the answer. It is an orphan, so perhaps it is better to just list it for deletion than try to sort it out.
After I left your the message about Image:Bw mm2.jpg in May, I forgot about it. I assumed that you had some off-wiki correspondence that lead you to such a specific license as cc-by-sa. I did visit the source site at the time though, and the impression that I remember is that all of the its images were taken from various sources. The uploader does not seem to be still around to answer questions, so I suggest we list it on PUI.

Also note that there are more similar problems in your early uploads, I only pointed-out a few examples. I think it would also be a good idea — when you have a chance, this isn't urgent — for you to go through all of your contributions in the image space. In the examples above, you seem to have applied license tags such as cc-by-sa and gfdl without cause. There are no doubt many similar edits that you could find using your edit summaries (which are excellent, by the way). Unless there is evidence that the copyright holder has agreed to a specific license, we must not assume that they have. For example, "Published on the Brian Westbrook Fansite with permission from the photographer", does not indicate either the restrictions or freedoms of the cc-by-sa or gfdl licenses. Let me know if I help you at all. ×Meegs 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SherKhanNasher.jpg could be deleted, but as author stated the image seems to be in public domain. I think there is no need to hurry to delete such images as they could be in public domain. Regarding Image:Shyam Bahadur.jpg, I am not sure about tagging, but I have tried to contact the artist of the image but could not get any reply yet. May be because of that it could be deleted. As uploader provided a source for the Image:Bw mm2.jpg, which redirects to some other site which claims to GNU General Public License, and have similar kind of sports images (cud not find the same image:(), so I do not think the image is unfee and need to list to WP:POI. And I do agree with your suggestions. I would do it later, as my exams are very near. Very thanks for your kind words. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just three quick things:

Image:SherKhanNasher.jpg – The uploader's statement, "everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed," does not support this being PD
- I am thinking because it is copyrighted of 1938, even though we do not know about the copyrights of Afganistan. Could be not eligible for {{PD}}, not sure:( Shyam ^(T/C)
Image:Shyam Bahadur.jpg – Would you take the copyright tag off of the image, so that we do not propagate misinformation about its license? I think it would be a good idea if you would nominate it for deletion too. You can always reupload it if you the author agrees to a free license.
- I am going for deletion of it:) Shyam ^(T/C)
Image:Bw_mm2.jpg – Which website mentions (or mentioned) the GFDL? The sourced website is no longer active, and, as far as I can remember, hosted images from many different sources (i.e. that they did not own and could not release the rights to).
- Here is the link which claims GNU License, but the image doesn't seem to be copied fro here. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, the football statistics tracking software is under the GPL, but not the site's content. The image site was completely separate, regardless. I'm going to list it on PUI. ×Meegs 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, than I also think, it would be better, please carry on. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

×Meegs 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyvio's

Hi! repeat problems from two users previously mentioned:-

User:James Huddz Had uploaded these images to the Huddersfield article, despite just having similar ones deleted as copyvios.

The first has a spam link for the source link, the second and the third are repeat uploads of images that have just been deleted within the last few days.

I have tagged them with {{imagevio|url=http// whatever they were}}. Then added them to [3] and put the relevant notice on his talk page, for each image here:- User talk:James Huddz. As its the first time I have fully followed this sequence through I would appreciate it if you could check I have done everything correctly. I have removed them from the article page now. Richard Harvey 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left them a message. Let me know if they upload any more. Thanks. ×Meegs 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I forgot to mention the second user but the images I am suspicious of are listed here. I can't work out if they would be permitted or not in view of the sources listed. [4]. Richard Harvey 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. None of those images come from that web site; the upload summary was copied from Image:Creek Marina Club Karachi.jpeg. I've tagged them all with {{no source}}. ×Meegs 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mini userpage edit war/vandalism

Hi Meegs! I just spotted some problems that are appearing on the User:WTF user page, see history from the start of the month. Its beyond my ken to do something as I think its something that requires and admins block functions. Could you take a look? Richard Harvey 08:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope it's over now. If you want to help out, add User:Xtremeblur's user page to your watchlist and report any future problems on AIV (or to me, if it's subtle). Best ×Meegs 09:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WTF

No problem. I just had no idea what was going on. The IP and the two other users seemed to be sockpuppets but then I found out that the page was moved from another user page, then one of the users says they are WTF's brother. Anyway, its over. Gdo01 09:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Madhavan article

Greetings Meegs. The reason I am writing to you is to notify you regarding film articles User:Thamizhan has created regarding the actor Madhavan. I've searched and searched the whole net but I've yet to find a single article which mentions these films. Also, I am an avid followers of websites regarding Hindi language films and Tamil language films and I have not seen an article on these websites which gives mention to these films. Examples of these articles are : Yaaravan Nalam, Hello Zindagi, Aaval and Ivan Yaaro. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes, which is bound to raise suspicion.

Also, the entire article regarding the actor in question, Madhavan, has not been written in a neutral point of view. All the images on this article shouldn't even be there as they infringe on copyrights. I implore you to look into this matter. Thank you. I had earlier reported this to User:Yamla but to no avail. He did not seem interested in the matter, he even archived the topic not even with a reply. I would really appreciate your concern into this. -- Visual planet 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not researched the upcoming films myself, but I suggest that you ask User:Prince Godfather (the new name of Thamizhan) to provide sources for the information to satisfy WP:V. If they do not, and you still can not find any sources of your own, then you can list them all, as a group, on Articles for deletion. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is a common rationale for deletion. ×Meegs 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left Prince Godfather a message about image copyrights and policy. If you do not like the POV or bias of the article, you can fix it yourself or discuss the problems on the article's talk page. Optionally, if the issues are serious enough, you may also tag the article with {{npov}} to attract outside attention. ×Meegs 03:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Meegs, thank for you reply. It was really appreciated. I did as you said and tagged the article with the {{npov}} tag but as expected, User:Prince Godfather kept removing them. He then left me a rather rude edit summary on the page. That can be viewed here. I really really dont want to create a fuss, but could you have a word with him? Thanks... -- Visual planet 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you worry about the npov tag (which really isn't that important), you should raise some specific issues on the talk page, rather than just making a sweeping condemnation. You'll probably need to fix the article a bit at a time. ×Meegs 18:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Images

Ah Thanks for the compliment. I'll keep that in mind in the future :) --ShadowJester07 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
by Pedia-I ^{Project Jesus}
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Image uploads

Hi Meegs!; Following a revert by User:BlueValour to some petty vandalism by User:James Huddz, on the Huddersfield article, I've been having a browse through the contribs lists and some edited articles by him and User:Usman uk, mostly prompted by their continued uploading of copyvio images. looking at the Huddersfield edit histories from the 4th of Oct 2006, and the 25th of Oct 2006 edits to Karachi, then comparing the type of edits done, I am of the opinion that they may be one and the same! Possibly also including User:82.30.67.165. Would it be possible for you to check that hypothesis? It may prove useful if an editing block is required, which seems likely judging by the way they are going. Richard Harvey 18:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definately looks like a match, but they haven't edited concurrently or in violation of WP:SOCK. I may need to block James Huddz if he doesn't heed the outstanding warning, though. I also notice that a few of my tags on Usman's images — which I apparently forgot to put on my watchlist — have been removed by 81.178.99.224 (talk · contribs). Keep me apprised. ×Meegs 18:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That user seems to have a lack of contibutions! I have retagged the ones he changed, If they get removed again, without the uploader inserting the required coyright info I will put a copvio tag on them instead. Richard Harvey 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to let you know User:James Huddz has been active again on the Huddersfield article which was reverted by User:BlueValour, who also issued him a final warning. He also did some vandalism on the Pakistan article. He loaded in an image, which is already tagged for deletion, in place of a legitimate one. That was reverted by another user though no warning was given. Richard Harvey 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file was inadvertantly uploaded

Sorry, I could not figure out how to leave a message so I am doing it this way. This file was inadvertantly uploaded :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_Mapley_Affidavit-_CT_Superior_Court_-_26-JUN-03.pdf Can you please delete it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banquero (talk • contribs) 2006 November 13 18:51 UTC.

Done. ×Meegs 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Days

Like sands through the hourglass... this user enjoys
Days of our Lives.

Many many moons ago, you mentioned how you liked Days of our Lives. I figured you might like this as well!

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, I like it! I'm going to leave it right there. ×Meegs 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting the Vandalism done to to my page by User:200.181.82.179. Richard Harvey 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitty Street

Just checked this with VP. I'm not sure if the edits are vandalism or a copyright issue. Richard Harvey 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former, I'm pretty sure. ×Meegs 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.43.90.148

Good Morning (UK wise of Course). Could you take a look at the 2 contribs of this anon user please? I have knocked the edits off Dhulbahante with VP. Partly as they didn't seem right for the article, but also because I have seen the same edits on another article yesterday, though by a different anon user, which I left as I had only noticed the image and thought it sincere. It was on a wiki 'how to' type page. If you look at the http link that was put on it seems to redirect you back to the wiki upload file page. I will go and hunt for it and then revert it as well if you feel this is a touch of vandalism and not a badly done edit? Richard Harvey 09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly remembered the image was on Wikipedia:Introduction, I have just checked the image page and it seems to be on several articles, so I may have got it wrong? Richard Harvey 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I'm pretty confused by your message, but what I see are two good-faith edits that try to add this image of a flag to the article. It's really common for newbies to add [[:Image:Example.jpg]] to articles after reading and misunderstanding instruction pages such as Wikipedia:Images, and also to fool around with syntax to try to figure out a way to display off-site images. If the edits were brand new or this was a registered user, then it would be a good idea to drop them a helpful message on their talk page, but as it is, they'd probably never see it. ×Meegs 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, edit reverted and link format corrected. Richard Harvey 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I didn't mean that the edits should stay. I've just re-removed them. ×Meegs 11:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Dear Meegs, I have a favor to ask of you. Recently, the vandalism on the Dhoom 2 page by unregistered users have become more frequent. The page is literally being vandalized every single day. I've seen administrators protecting pages after being requested to. Could you protect the page? -- Maddy20 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to right now. Looking over the article, I just discovered and removed a large copyright violation that now needs to be replaced. The article is also generally in poor shape, and with the film being released in just over a week's time, we could lose a lot of opportunities for improvement by protecting. Stick the article on your watchlist, warn its vandals, and if it gets really bad, request semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards. ×Meegs 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:93EagleVisionPR.jpg

Hello, CZmarlin. I've just tagged Image:93EagleVisionPR.jpg as replaceable as well. Cab forward could be illustrated just as well with a free content image, couldn't it? Regards. ×Meegs 15:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs. I agree that this image can be removed. The LH models from Chrysler were regular production cars. Many are on the road to this day. This is not the case for (a) seldom seen automobiles, (b) images that correctly show the original condition of the vehicle, or (c) a concept car, such as the Rambler Tarpon from 1963 that was last seen in 1964.
However, I should point out that all too often the pictures that appear on Wikipedia are of cars and trucks that have been modified or customized and thus no longer represent the subject material in a correct and historical manner. This is an area where there should be greater flexibility in the campaign to eliminate illustrations of subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. This is only my opinion, but a historically correct image (for example a press release photograph) should have priority over a "free" image. An example is the following -- Image:60's car with blue flames at Power Big Meet 2005.jpg. This is not a factual representation of the actual subject described in the Wikipedia. I think the use of such "free" images detracts from the goal of the Wikipedia endeavor. Just my $0.02 -- CZmarlin 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where authentic specimens are truly rare, I do agree with you. I don't know what, if anything, has been done to that car except the paint, but I can certainly imagine a case where a car's modification is too significant for it to suitably illustrate an article. ×Meegs 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Image:60's car with blue flames at Power Big Meet 2005.jpg, the vehicle has received more than the custom (spray can) paint with added flames that make this station wagon go faster. I am sure you can observe more than the paint because this car almost appears to have been resurrected from a junkyard! In addition to the rusted out front fender, the rear fender has been cut out around the wheel opening. The patched area is clearly outlined all the way around and to the back. There is also evidence of an accident, apparently the car was rear ended at one because the rear bumper is pushed in and the rear quarter panel is bent down (or perhaps someone had way too much Bondo to play with). The car is also missing numerous trim pieces that it is impossible to determine the specific model. The outside rear view mirror is a generic aftermarket replacement. Moreover, how can you even disregard the painted over door handles and the custom red grille? Did you also notice that the side marker lights have been removed and some duct tape and decals randomly placed on the side? Of course the factory never made them with mismatched wheels and missing wheel covers. These are all very obvious in this image. There are many more modifications to this than just the paint! Yes, it is a free image -- but hardly worthy of illustrating the subject to a reader who may have never seen this automobile in its original condition.

In the other hand, it does show how a 1970 AMC Rebel has been able to survive the ravages of 35 years of use in Europe! The article is not about how long cars made by American Motors last, but it is the history of the company and the numerous automobiles it made.

In other words, a publicity image of a 1970 Rebel from the manufacturer paints a much better view of the way station wagons really were -- for example see: [5] . Once again, the decision is up to the Wikipedia standards to determine the level of quality -- vehicles with modifications or cars that represent the way they were when new. It is your call! CZmarlin 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the current image is extremely marginal does not mean a better free image is not possible. That said, I do not know how rare the vehicle is today, and I'm not advocating one way or another. ×Meegs 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orkney Islands Scotland UK.jpg

Hi Meegs! Could you please delete this image of mine? I have now uploaded it to commons as Image:Orkney Islands.jpg. Many Thanks. Richard Harvey 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ×Meegs 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a bird? Was it a plane?, was it Superman? No it was Meegs in 3 minutes flat! Richard Harvey 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why is it can revert? I want admin (я умоляю с всем моим хлебом). Make admin for me? ok?

--BoredLikeCardboard 10:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this user is trying to rip off Borat or what, but to me it's pretty clear that it's a gimmick vandalism account making nonsensical nuisance edits. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'll be watching for a little while. ×Meegs 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

I took off all the images I made on their pages. Sigh... Not another rule getting in my way... DarknessLord (talk) Whatever day/month/year/weekday it is, whatever time it is (unknown time zone) D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Runninginthefamily.jpg

Hi Meegs,

I take this pic from the English Wikipedia at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/Runninginthefamily.jpg/150px-Runninginthefamily.jpg.

Is it a copyright violation?

--80.103.36.104 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you are going to use it. In the article Level 42, it is used alongside a small bit of commentary about the album, and may be considered fair use in the United States. If you're interested in adding it to a different Wikipedia article, you'll need to make sure that the usage meets all of the criteria of Wikipedia's policy on unfree images. If you are looking to use the image outside of Wikipedia, I can not give any definite answers either, but let me know if you have any more questions. ×Meegs 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploader

Hey there Meegs! I was hoping you might help with something, or at least take a look and give me your opinions. We had a previous discussion about a user on your talk page here. Now, take a look at images uploaded by There's Been a Kill (talk · contribs). I believe that this is the same user as Onlyslighted (talk · contribs), Padgett22 (talk · contribs), Steph11 (talk · contribs) and SEGA (talk · contribs). As you can see from my edits last night, I went through a lot of old photos by Onlyslighted and SEGA that are unsourced or used in a wrong way. Now, this new user starts uploading in a VERY similar manner. I really don't know what to do about it, though. Should I request a check user (none of the names are banned, it just seems the user started a new name when they thought they were getting close to being banned)? Should I post something on AN/I? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This will take a bit of study, and I won't be able to get into it until tomorrow. In the meantime, leave the active user a message about what they're doing wrong. I'll provide a second voice if it's needed. You may also want to start writing down some of the similarities that you see among these users. Such a record will be useful if there are future iterations, if any of them end-up blocked, or if we need to request a checkuser. ×Meegs 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One quick thing: don't tag album covers with {{nosource}}. Album covers should be fully identified with the name of the artist and publisher, but as long as they are being used properly, we do not delete them for missing this info (it can always be added later, and adding it is not really much more work than taking it through a deletion process, anyway). We do not need a URL or information about the scanning of the cover, the capture of a screenshot, or the faithfully digitized a 2D piece of art, as these actions are not afforded copyright protection. If you could reverse these sorts of taggings before orphanbot gets to them, that would be great. ×Meegs 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've left the two active accounts a message about fair use rationales and criterion #1, and gently mentioned that multiple accounts are not desirable. I didn't really look deeply for similarities between the users, so please, keep keeping track of these things. Also, try to always notify uploaders, especially active ones, when you orphan or tag their images for deletion. There are templates for these things, but a hand-written note is better (and a necessity for long-term problems). In addition to the obvious benefits of alerting and educating users, we can't really consider blocking a user for image violations unless editors have already tried to engage them. ×Meegs 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your views. I was wondering something else; if in the near future, certain images get deleted that the user(s) have tried to continue to use get uploaded again, either by one of these user names or another new one, that has a completely different copyright tag than the previous image in hopes that they can use it, is there a way to find out the logisitics of previous images after deletion on the admin-side? (holy run on sentence, Batman!) I ask because the IP User:67.33.61.18 has been trying to reinsert particular images in Trey Anastasio and Marc Daubert that violate WP:FU. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the old file's name, then you can look up the deleting admin's reason in the log (example). That will at least tell you what deletion process it went through (IFD, CP, no source, no license, no rationale, orphaned fair use, etc.), and sometimes more. If you've forgotten the old file's name, then you can look it up either in an article's history, or in an editor's upload log. Admins can view a deleted image's whole history, so you can ask one if the logs don't give enough info for your investigation.

I didn't really understand your question, so I wouldn't be surprised if I haven't answered it. Image's histories certainly can be important. If a photo is uploaded first as a promo and then as pd-self, it's a good case for WP:PUI. If you're absolutely certain that a tag is fraudulent for some reason (like say, if it has a Getty watermark), then you can strike the bad tag (~~{{PD-self}}~~), add a brief explanation to the image page image page itself along with {{subst:nld}} and/or {{subst:nsd}}, and notify the uploader (politely) that they're doing something wrong. PUI and IFD are the courses if there's any possibility of a misunderstanding, though. ×Meegs 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; you answered my question. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I was hoping that if you have the time, you can take a look at Image:bonnaroo_ETSU.jpg. The uploader, Trey Fan (talk · contribs), states that it his his photo and when he inserted it into Trey Anastasio, he put that the photo was taken by Michael Tharp. In fact, I found the photo at [6] where it states it was taken by Jeff Kravitz and that "All Photos © 2002 Superfly Productions." What can I do or what should be done to call into question this image? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the uploader to explain. If you think this is probably a misunderstanding (e.g. the website got the photographer's name wrong), just do that. If you think skullduggery is likely, though, then list it on PUI and ask them to explain there. If there is disagreement, you can always shoot an email to the website and add their response under your PUI listing. ×Meegs 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the users talk page. In the mean time, to check, I contacted the bonarroo webpage and got a response back. They said that the photo was taken by Kravitz. I will wait to see if the user responds to my question. Thanks for the help! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to keep bugging you. The correspondent at Super Fly Productions said they would like the image removed. I can forward the email to you if you let me know how. Thanks for your help as always. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. Good work. ×Meegs 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done about 168.102.135.9?

Hello, I saw you blocked whoever this is. Is it possible to block this person/school forever? Nearly all of his/their edits are vandalism. Just saying... --ASDFGHJKL 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

168.102.135.9 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • block user • block log)

Hi ASDFGHJKL. We don't block school IP addresses permanently, but if the address continues to produce nothing but vandalism, it will soon be blocked for weeks at a time. If you see it causing problems again, please list it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ×Meegs 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hello Us it OK to upload a postage stamp? If it is, what type of a copyright description is required? please tell me exactly how to proceed. The stamp is from Mexico. Best, Healkids 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, you should identify the stamp in your upload summary, and give its date and country of issue. Before you upload it, you'll need to figure out if it is still protected by copyright. If the stamp is many decades old, it may have entered the public domain. If need help figuring this out, let me know and I can point you to some useful resources. If the stamp is recent and still under copyright, then we might still be able to use it under fair use. Note though, that we can use a copyrighted stamp in an article that discusses that stamp in particular; discussing the person, object, or event pictured on the stamp is not enough.

If you need more help, let me know. You might instead consider posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately or asking User:Stan Shebs, who does a lot of work with stamps and copyrights. In any case, let us know when the stamp was issued, and how you're planning to use it. ×Meegs 11:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion tagging

I disagree. What then is the {{db-unksource}} to be used for? It specifically lists that the image is a CSD candidate because it has been tagged with the other tags for at least 7 days. Further, to "wait until an admin gets to it" isn't an effective process. It's too easy for admins to skip over the image listing categories at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to get to the articles which seem to take priority and handled regularly. Images that are 5 days past the 7 day expiration need some pushing to get handled. This is the CSD notice I place on the images. I understand there are lots of images and things to get to and a backlog, but waiting isn't appropriate in my opinion. (As a note, to be clear, and please do not take offense, I do only CSD tag images that are more than the 7 days old and clearly CSD. That is, they don't include a URL or other clearly source info. Whereas most have nothing but the other tags.) --MECU≈talk 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to suggest the template's deletion shortly, because you are not the first person to do this. Flooding the main category of speedy candidates, which is filled with more pressing instances, is not helpful. The images in the dated categories (no source, no license, orphaned fair use, etc.) are always dealt with, I assure you. I know it is not your intention, but your are wasting your edits in addition to making thing more difficult for administrators. We are all volunteers, so "wait until an admin gets to it" is the best we can offer. ×Meegs 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victoria Cross.jpg

Hi Meegs! Could you please delete the above image for me, that I uploaded a while back? I have now uploaded it to commons. I have edited the articles using it to the commons image;- Image:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.jpg. Though this article:- Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/August is still shown to be linked to the image for deletion. I have edited it as noted that when you click on the image it shows it to be the commons Image? I can't understand why the link is still showing! Thanks. Richard Harvey 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this image has just been uploaded, Spotted it with WP:VP, Image:Necro nesia wii.jpg which I suspect is a copyvio? Richard Harvey 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've retagged the video game cover and left the uploader a message. You could have done that. ;) I deleted the Victoria Cross. Remember that simple reproductions are really only appropriate on Commons if you argue that the underling work (in this case the the design of medal) is public domain, either due to age or ineligibility for copyright. I don't know if it's the case here. ×Meegs 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning! Although the VC was scanned from a personal collection the medal design, being pre 1952 is classed as PD. Crowncopyright would also allow the use of the design, when used in context. I moved it to commons for usage in other language wiki's. I've noted your edit to the gamecover image for future use. Many Thanks :). Richard Harvey 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that crown copyright is unfree for our purposes, and not suitable for Commons. If the copyright has expired — I believe it has if this design was first used more than 50 years ago — then I'm just suggesting that you note it on the description page to avoid any controversy in the future. ×Meegs 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission

hello Meegs, Thanks for your concerns. I had found 4 images from my initial uploads which could have copyright problems. Two of the images, Image:Nishan Pad Yatra.jpg and Image:Falgun Mela.jpg, I could found out here. But the website does not claim any copyrights. I had been unable to contact the wesite owner previously. For two other images, Image:Khatushyamji.jpg and Image:Teen Baan.jpg, I could not find out the appropraie source. Then , I suppose, all of the uploads should be deleted. Please suggest, Shyam ^(T/C) 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about them before because your upload summaries seem to say that you created the images. Yes, if we don't know who the copyright holders are, or do not have evidence that they have explicitly released the works to PD or under the a specific free licenses, we can not keep the images. They do not seem to be candidates for fair use either. Remember, for the most part, works do not have to be published with a copyright notice to be protected. You can read a little bit about this at WP:PD. I'd suggest tagging these four images with {{no license}}.

Also, take a lesson from how you acted back then: there are lots of users today who make vague or incorrect statements about copyrights (in addition to ones that knowingly lie). We need to see past this and always make certain that images that are labeled free are in fact free. WP:PUI is a great place to get second opinions when the uploader is not helpful. Regards ×Meegs 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meegs, very thanks for your inputs and suggestions. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Hello Meegs, first of all, you could not enforce to stay away any particular user from a project, where (s)he wants to work. I have good knowledge about image policies. I have read all the fair use criteria and image policies. May be, I need to read the talk pages of these policies as well before, so I could get clearer idea about those newly implemented policies, like, no fair use rationable, and replacable fair-use images. Those were implemented during my break from Wikipedia. I would read all the discussions carefully, as the time will permit me.

Will you please let me know, where I had made the wrong decisions? If you think I had got the admin tools earlier and you are not convinced with my admin actions, you could make request for de-sysoping me. Let the community decide, if I am not eligible to carry the tool. I would like to say one thing, please do not make harsh comments. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not looking to have you desysoped. I'm asking you to act responsibly and voluntarily stay from acting as an authority in an area in which you do not have adequate background knowledge. You've demonstrated the problem in your edits a year ago, a month ago, and this week. I apologize if I've spoken harshly; I do not like having to have this conversation with you, but I feel it is really important. ×Meegs 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Meegs. Could you restore the File:Akayev.jpg for now? I believe it was deleted in error: Shyam Bihari referred to invalid fair-use claim, but this requires 7 days wait for images uploaded before July 13, 2006. The disputed fair use tag was present already. -Ktotam 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances, we could probably undelete the image and redate its {{replaceable fair use}} template to allow for one more week of discussion. There is no use in doing this, however, unless you have an argument for the talk page that the photo is indispensable to the article because its subject is no longer available for photography. On the image's description page, you had said that "no free image of similar value could be found", but in order to use an unfree image, it also has to be true that no similar image can be created in the future. I'm not sure this is the case with Askar Akayev; his article says he is currently a university professor in Moscow. Let me know if you're still interested in keeping the image. Best ×Meegs 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Prince Joachim, Archduke of Austria-Este

Your recent edit to Prince Joachim, Archduke of Austria-Este (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False positive reported here. ×Meegs 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I know, I was about to. User:Obi-WanKenobi-2005

The aforementioned user repeatedly adds and removes from his user page. Is this permissible? I'm not sure why he's going back and forth with this; maybe he's viewing new uploads in a really makeshift way? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they just want to see all of their uploads in one place. It's not a huge deal if it's for minutes at a time, but I've suggested some alternate methods on their talk page. Best ×Meegs 03:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are both making great suggestions. I add them just to have it in History what I have Uploaded, in Case People want to see. User:Obi-WanKenobi-2005 25, December 2006

JAXA images

Could images created by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency be used in Wikipedia articles? The JAXA Photo Archives policy [7] leaves me a little unsure. Here are excerpts from the particularly relevant sections:

1. Usage is free if it is limited for the purpose of press coverage, education, and public relations activities for space development
3. Alteration or distortion of JAXA materials is not permitted
4. When using materials, JAXA should be credited as the source
9. In the case of usage for commercial purposes, prior approval by JAXA is required

While my understanding of Wikipedia's image copyright rules is incomplete, my understanding is that given the above stipulations, JAXA images would be ineligible for inclusion under {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. However, I am not sure if JAXA images could then be used via {{Fair use in}}.

Not wanting to re-invent the wheel, I tried looking through existing JAXA articles (see Category:Japanese space program), however most of those images appear to be (incorrectly) tagged as being {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. As always, thanks again for your help! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4 would be ok, but points 1, 3, and 9 are killers and prevent us from considering their images free. For us, a free image can not be restricted to educational or non-commercial use, and must allow derivative works (alterations). The images should only be used on Wikipedia with a fair use template, preferably {{Fair use in}}, and only if they comply with WP:FUC. None of them should be on Commons. ×Meegs 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few articles in that category. All of the images that I saw came from NASA sites, though that doesn't mean they're NASA property. Image:LUNAR-A.jpg, for example, comes from JAXA and is tagged and awaiting speedy deletion on Commons. ×Meegs 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to James Robert Baker

I'm trying to figure out how your edit is an improvement, since "Long Beach" in the info box is not an internal link. That's the only place the term appears. Jeffpw 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It won't help readers, but it will prevent editors from returning to the article again and again to find-out why it has a link to a disambiguation page, and may be helpful to the machines that use the data in the template. Is there a problem? ×Meegs 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not problem. I was just looking and looking at the diff, trying to figure out how changing what looked like internal links that are not clickable served any purpose. I still don't understand it, but I am all for anything that is helpful to machines! :-) Jeffpw 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I don't know all that {{Persondata}} is used for (or will be in the future), but it's certainly better for it to associate the guy's article with Long Beach, California rather than Long Beach, the disambiguation page. Best ×Meegs 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Hi Meegs, I would just like to thank you for deleting my images as specified and making my life even less stressed! Happy New Year to you and everyone at Wikipedia. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]