User talk:Muchness/2007-08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image restore

Thanks for saving my image, were you able to save the other person's also? It was a nice photo. If I was able to find my original, I would have reloaded it under a different name, to save the other person's, but I deleted the original to make room on the camera. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the other editor didn't include source or licensing info when uploading the photo, so I didn't feel comfortable taking the liberty of re-uploading it myself. I left a note on the editor's talk page requesting a re-upload under a new name. --Muchness 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi, I've sent through an email with attached correspondence re the pictures I uploaded. I'll put in a tag on all the pictures pages to say that I've done so as well. Thanks for helping out a novice. George1966 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --Muchness 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright DELLAS

wat about this.. this is the same....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Petercrouch_liverpool.JPG ????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-real-zeus (talk • contribs) 16:42:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Hello, look under the "Additional Information" heading on the source image's page; the image is released under cc-by-2.0 license. The image you uploaded is copyright; see the notice under the "Additional Information" heading [1]. --Muchness 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see ...thanks for the help....!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-real-zeus (talk • contribs) 16:52:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

NEW DELLAS

Is this ok ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DELLASAEK.jpg The-real-zeus 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately there are still possible problems with the images you uploaded; we have to consider whether the licenses used by the Flickr uploader are accurate. Please feel free to join the discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 19#Image:Demis33.jpg. --Muchness 23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

????

So how are u gonna concider weither the licences used by Fluckr are accurate...? ,and if this image has to bee conciderd than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Petercrouch_liverpool.JPG should be to..? The-real-zeus 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of reviewing the evidence and making a judgment on a case-by-case basis. There is strong evidence, as I noted on the WP:PUI listings, that the Flickr uploader does not own the copyrights for the images he or she uploaded, which means that the uploader doesn't have the right to release the image under a cc-by-sa license. If you have evidence to the contrary, please make a note of it on the image listings at WP:PUI. Also, if you have reason to believe that the Flickr user who uploaded the Peter Crouch image didn't take the photo and/or is not the copyright holder, by all means list the image at WP:PUI. --Muchness 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So wat happens now..??? The-real-zeus 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Interested parties will consider the issue and an admin will make a decision following a 14-day period for discussion. --Muchness 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

KOTOR 2

Thanks for lending support for the removal of the fan mod. material from KotOR 2. Not surprisingly, the anon. editor has again added the material :-/. --EEMeltonIV 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be necessary to report at WP:AN/3RR or WP:AIV if the unsourced content continues to be added to the article. --Muchness 23:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: would appreciate your comments on the talk page to substantiate argument that the should-be-deleted material (which was restored prior to the page being protected) should be axed. --EEMeltonIV 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll look into it. --Muchness 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with including university academical involvement in Blogger

As title, please reply to me I don't understand why you keep on deleting that part. My email is [removed email address to protect from potential spammers --Muchness] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.137.112 (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Content in Wikipedia articles should a) rely on reliable, third-party published sources and b) be appropriate for the article's subject. The article in question, Blogger (service), is an encyclopedic overview of the Blogger publishing system, not an itemization of people and entities that use the system. A mention of this design course may be appropriate in an article subsection that gives a general overview of the use of the Blogger service in academia, assuming sources that meet WP:V can be found for the content. Please feel free to discuss this matter further on the article's talk page. Regards. --Muchness 07:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Robinho

Thanks for helping on Robinho today. I am on WP:3RR risk there. A suspected sockpuppeteer User:AnonymousDude1993 and sockpuppets User:Futbolfan and User:IamRobinho are making the same DOB change adding the same comments that "he heard on TV that Robinho is 19 yrs old". Sockpupeteer has been reported to: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AnonymousDude1993. Please keep an eye on this one. Thanks! Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've added the article to my watchlist and will keep an eye on things. --Muchness 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for some reason there seems to be an edit war in this article about his real age. I hope you have more knowledge of soccer than I have (I only stumbled onto the article as the edit summary made me suspicious). 1redrun Talk 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it may have been one editor using sockpuppets to push dubious and unsourced edits to the article (see above post). At any rate, official sources such as the Real Madrid website and news sources agree that his birthday is January 25, 1984 (e.g., [2], [3]). --Muchness 11:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

҉

Look as long as the Unicode symbol has an article that's a good thing. It shouldn't matter if it is long or short, people still need to know about it. Serminigo 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page, as the article was previously proposed for deletion and changed to a redirect by multiple editors. Topics should have articles on Wikipedia if they meet notability guidelines, and it's debatable whether this symbol is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. --Muchness 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

shart

give me your personal opinion, is an article with citations and written in a mature manner, about shart, ever going to remain without being deleted? or will i just waste my time if i make it?Sennen goroshi 05:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To avoid deletion, the article must cite reliable sources and must be encyclopedic, not just a dictionary definition. My personal opinion is that at this time an article on the term will be deleted, because there are not currently sufficient reliable sources, and the term is not currently in sufficiently widespread usage. I don't feel that the source you provided, [4], is by itself sufficient to establish the term's notability per WP:NEO. If you're concerned that an article on this term may be deleted, you can create a draft article in your personal sandbox and work on it with other interested editors. Also bear in mind that as the term gains popularity and more widespread usage, it may at some future point become sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Muchness 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't recall saying that, can you point me to the relevant discussion? I'll have a look at the deletion debate and leave a note there if I feel I can offer an informed opinion, but please be wary of canvassing; this practice is strongly frowned upon for reasons outlined at WP:CANVAS. --Muchness 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAT

I asked a question regarding hatnotes over all tags and thought you could take part in answering it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've replied there. --Muchness 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethyl Meatplow

Sorry for the accidental revert. I saw you removing the speedy deletion criterion on a page with little content and didn't spend enough time checking the references. My mistake.--Hazel77 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, no problem. But please note that that CSD A7 only applies to articles that contain no indication of importance/significance whatsoever. If the article contains an assertion of importance, however tenuous, prodding it or listing it at WP:AFD is a better option. Regards. --Muchness 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i'll make a point of doing that from now on.--Hazel77 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Fragments

Comrade I am having trouble finding ways to describe the Turkish Fragments as unbiasly as possable how may I do this so? Also I am intriuged by how you refrenced it to naxos how did you know naxos Made that Musical piece? I apriciate your time reading this. --Zaharous 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Zaharous

Hello. The best way to describe a piece without bias is to find reliable sources that describe the piece, and use those sources as a basis for your edits, adding footnotes in the article to reference your source material. I found the Naxos article by Google searching for information on the Turkish Fragments. --Muchness 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems

I´m sorry, that wasn´t my intention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanilla Ichigo (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 November 2007

It's no problem at all. Image related policies on Wikipedia can be complicated even for experienced users. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions; I'll try to help or put you in touch with someone who can. Regards. --Muchness 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to keep the picture just for this wiki-profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanilla Ichigo (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 November 2007

It's likely that this copyright image will be deleted, because a free image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose could be created (see Non-free content criteria 1). --Muchness 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:The-real-zeus

User:The-real-zeus uploaded Image:Papastathopoulos-2007.jpg today. User:The-real-zeus has an (to quote you) "extensive history of attempting to circumvent Wikipedia's image use policies (see upload log, block log)". You nominated a bunch of his images at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_August_19 but since he claimed he was the copyright holder, even if his explanation was weak, good faith was assumed, and the images kept.

I asked User:The-real-zeus today if he really had taken the image and this conversation took place:

Image:Papastathopoulos-2007.jpg

Did you take this image? Rettetast 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So You work for AEK? Rettetast 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[5] Rettetast 20:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly,i work for AEK,took the picture,uploaded them all to aekfc.gr The-real-zeus (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
So you wont mind sending an mail from your AEK mailaddress to the OTRS confirming the release or noting on the AEK website that the image is released under CC-BY-2.0 then? Rettetast 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an image with better resolution btw. Rettetast 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry mate i dont have a higher oneThe-real-zeus (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats ok, as long as you verify the copyright as by sending an e-mail, or noting the license on the AEK webpage. That wont be a problem, will it? Rettetast 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, which method do you prefer. The mail or the website change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettetast (talk • contribs)
            • You know what i dont like that image anymore,i will get a beter one tommorow,could you delete it for me...cheers..lol... :D The-real-zeus (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this image probably is a blatant copyvio, I think his earlier uploads also are copyvios. Whats your thoughts about this. Any suggestions on what to do? Rettetast 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you that the explanations offered at the prior WP:PUI debate are questionable in light of the dubious nature of his recent explanations to you. Unfortunately, the editor who okayed his images at the prior WP:PUI debate is currently on Wikibreak so it's not possible to consult with him. Other options include relisting the questionable images at WP:PUI, making a note at WP:AN, or getting an admin with experience in image-related areas to review the case. Could you conduct this review yourself? I'm not sure about appropriate etiquette or process in this regard. Regards and good luck getting this issue resolved. --Muchness (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_18#Image:Papastathopoulos-2007.jpg. I hav also nominated other images where he has claimed copyright. Rettetast 18:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide images

cobenobo: Why did you remove my images to the Rwandan Genocide? Those are valid pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobenobo (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2007

Hello. The images you uploaded were deleted from Wikipedia because they had an unknown copyright status. When you upload an image to Wikipedia, you must include on the description page the image's source and an image copyright tag. If the image is not usable under a free license, you must also include a fair use rationale on the description page. If an image is lacking this information, it will be deleted from Wikipedia. See WP:IUP for more info. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted image if shows on another Wikipedia?

Hello,

I recently uploaded a picture which was uploaded in another Wikipedia as well (the Hebrew Wikipedia, in the same article as well).

My picture is about to be deleted because it's copyright status is unknown, yet in the Hebrew Wikipedia it sais that the only restriction is that the picture can only be used in the article "Wu Wei Gung Fu".

Can you help explain the situation for me please?

Thanks in advance,

LV1212 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Images uploaded to the English Wikipedia must conform to the English Wikipedia's image use policy. On the English Wikipedia, an image's description page must specify the image's source (which Image:Joseph Cowles.jpg already does), and include an appropriate copyright tag. Additionally, if the image is not available for use under a free content license, it must also include a fair use rationale. Another thing to bear in mind is that if the image could reasonably be replaced by a free image (for instance, if it's a photo of a living person), we can't use it on the English Wikipedia. I hope this helps to clarify matters; please feel free to contact me if you need further assistance. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

please don't delete my page

This is in regard to subject:CINEMA which is tagged for deletion. Wiki has a subject page for podcasts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Movies_and_Television_podcasts of which this podcast is. What is the point of having the above mentioned link if there are no podcasts listed there because they keep getting deleted? Our page is based on the filmspotting pages and is really no different from that and is very similar to the Daily Source Code page also. The last time I submitted my page, I was asked to provide references and I believe I have met that requirement. If your going to have the above listed pages, there is no reason not to have ours also. Thank You and have a nice day. subject:cinema —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subjectcinema (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just going by my interpretation of the WP:WEB content guideline, which states that web-based content must either: a) have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, b) have won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization, or c) be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. I don't feel the above-mentioned website meets these criteria. I have listed it at AFD, so we can determine whether the site satisfies content guidelines; please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject:CINEMA. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sr2 cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Sr2 cover.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This image was tagged because the image description page linked to the article via a redirect. The problem has been fixed. --Muchness (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Astro Empires

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Astro Empires. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Butch-cassidy (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Changeling (Eberron)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Changeling (Eberron), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Changeling (Eberron). Deb (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I expanded this article back in 2005, before I was fully cognizant of Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding fictional content. It should probably be deleted. --Muchness (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Emo

This article has already been moved without any such request. Put it back where it was please. Sarah777 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately I can't move it back because I'm not an admin, and in any case I'm not convinced it shouldn't be the primary topic. In my opinion, your best course of action is to contact the admin who made the move (Haemo), file a move request, and/or start a discussion about whether the music style should be the primary topic on the article's talk page. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine loss of land image

Thank you noticing. Proper copyright and author information on due. I mishandled the uploas as wasn't very familiar with the upload process. Rudric (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thank you. --Muchness (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I really am sorry about that. It was an honest mistake. Next time I'll be more careful when I upload images. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really no problem, thank you. --Muchness (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Place link

Check the talk page please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonstruck (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, I've replied there. --Muchness (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright

Hey, you commented me earlier about a copyright on a picture of a Sting book. Just thought I'd let you know that I do have permission from the publisher and the author specifically to use images for their books. I was asked by the author themselves to do this

- SeanyakaRalphy (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and apologies for my earlier misunderstanding. Can you please forward confirmation of your permission to the e-mail address "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", so that a record of the images' status can be archived? See Wikipedia:Permission#When permission is confirmed for further info. Thanks and regards. --Muchness (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry

im sorry for uploading the image poorly im not very good at uploading can you please if you have time upload the picture right for me thank you so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Can you tell me the address of the websites you got the images from? --Muchness (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muchness/2007-08&oldid=1143182565"