User talk:Nard the Bard/Archive 3

Your speedy of A Week in the Woods

It's at DRV if you wanted to chime in, but please be careful of your speedy deletion nominations in the future - CSD A7 in particular (what this was deleted under) does not apply to books, and db-repost is only for articles that have been AfD'd. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the reverting of the vandalism on my userpage. I have requested it for semi-protection, and I will see what happens it has been approved and semi-protected. I'm going to back on my vacation. :) Thanks again. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Backdoor deletion: blanking content

If at TfD one doesn't suceed, then ....

I may not always be around to catch such changes. From your comment at the failed TfD, I hope you're the right person to ask this: would you please add {{Notcensored2}} (and maybe {{Notcensored}} as well) to your watchlist, and keep an eye on them for further such, um, "amendments", whether piece-by-piece or all-at-once?

Thanks! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added to watch list. We'll get em. Nardman1 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Hinomaru

User:Hyper nell bomber is vandalizing articles in the exact same manner as user:Hinomaru, who you already know has dozens of other sock puppets. I would appreciate it if you would add that user to the list of suspected sock puppets. I have no experience with this sort of action, and don't think I can do this myself. Thanks for your help. Parsecboy 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the notice. Nardman1 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this one too: User:B5N Kate, same vandalism style as Hinomaru. Thanks again. Parsecboy 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image query

(Can now be ignored, resolved...)

I've posted this to User talk:Majorly and noticed you've left a message on User:I Shook Up The Pedia's page and thought you might be able to help. Thanks. Gretnagod 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible image dispute

Hello there, I'm really just looking for a second opinion and/or clarification on what do do next.

My trouble is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lesnar_Hogan.jpg

User:I Shook Up The Pedia keeps adding it to Hulk Hogan. I have asked User:I Shook Up The Pedia about the image and the user has claimed on their talk page that it is indeed their image from an event. However, while I want to assume good faith, I cannot fail to think the image is in fact from a WWE photographer and therefore copyrighted.

I don't normally get invovled with image disputes, but this one keeps being added to the page and I just wanted to know where to go from here.

Thanks in advance Gretnagod 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:LegoAxiom1007

I would recommend taking this up at the main administrator's noticeboard. What the user is doing is not vandalism, per se. Not simple vandalism anyway. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of filing a request for check user on this individual? I really don't think he is new (since he is using templates, and knows how to do userboxes), but I could be wrong. Real96 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I notified the user about this. I also doubt he'd be returning since he seems to ask questions about certain things pertaining to WP. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think this one is a newbie, either, and I'm trying very hard to AGF. I've got piles of it stacked in the garage. I think it's somebody trying to push us as far as possible without actually doing something outright disruptive. – Riana ^talk 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Accountready

Please don't misinform users about removing warnings from their talk pages, as you did on this user's page. There is currently no policy or guideline prohibiting users from removing any content whatsoever from their talk pages. While it is frowned upon, it is most definitely allowed. There is even a school of thought which says that deleting a warning is a de facto acknowledgment that the warning has been read and understood. Jeffpw 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know a vandal when I see one, and I will warn them against their misdeeds as I see fit. PS:Accountready is indef blocked Nardman1 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:I Shook Up The Pedia

Please do not acknowledge this user, he is a sock puppet (at least the 85th) of the community banned vandal Verdict, Thanks. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Already indef blocked, man, what is it about people warning me about already blocked vandals today? That's how good I am, I fight the vandals. Nardman1 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

fair use images

Hi, just wanted to say I very much appreciate your effort with weeding out bad fair-use images. Just a note: please don't use the {replaceable fair use} tag on things like book covers or logos - they are, by definition, never "replaceable", because any replacement would be just as unfree as the original. Also, "no source" doesn't make too much sense for book covers - the source is, by definition, the book; any intermediate electronic image versions found on the web don't establish separate copyright and can therefore be ignored. - As for the legitimacy of the book covers, that's a grey area - the policy seems to be saying we should only use them "for critical commentary" and not just for identification, but there seems to be a silent consensus to allow them for basically every book article. I think if we wanted to change that, it would be better to get a centralised discussion going rather than to tackle individual book articles piecemeal. But I think there are categories of claimed fair use images that are much worse than this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment

Obviously it's up to you whether you want to stay active on Wikipedia or not, but please don't leave out of exasperation because of one either very ill-governed editor or, as appears more and more likely, troll. Some of us were prepared to assume good faith a bit more than others, but if it turns out you were right, the appropriate action will soon be taken (see the warning I have just added to his talkpage, on top of the one already there). Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• After this case is over I'm going to go away for a week or so. I'll change the retirement template. Thanks for the support. Nardman1 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is about LegoAxiom then I don't know, are we trying to discourage his use of those tool altogether or just the prank ones. this revision was legitimate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple admins asked him to stop using it altogether. Nardman1 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know he was asked not to use it altogether, sorry. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems neither of us could get to the fellow. He was blocked for a week. If he still bothers you just let someone else handle it so he doesn't target you. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 07:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

vandalism by User:MikeMcGD

Thanks but I think all of this user's moves were cleaned up by User:ReyBrujo including the removal of the sock puppets. I don't know if there's anything left to be done so you might want to contact Rey. -Enviroboy (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: socks

I blocked him indef as a sock of User:Jj0909jj, good catch. Like you said, let's keep an eye on the ips. John Reaves (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

James Madison Middle School

Just out of curiosity, was there any particular reason you chose to deprod the article? RGTraynor 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's on my watch list. Nardman1 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• And that's grounds to contest a prod why ... ? RGTraynor 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Re-read the prod rules. I don't have to give a reason grounded in policy. Nardman1 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, you don't, any more than you're compelled to give a reason when making an AfD !vote, but that mitigates against your POV being taken seriously. Sorry for troubling you. RGTraynor 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep of your MfD

I have speedy kept Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LegoAxiom1007/My templates, as this user was only blocked yesterday, and is appealing the block on his/her talk (using {{unblock}}) with what seems to be a good-faith reason. As I noted in the close, please let the dust settle on this - whether he/she is unblocked or not - and re-MfD them in a week or so. If you have any further questions or comments about my action here, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my user talk page. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

China Fair Use Tag

What happened to the China Copywright Law tag you had created?

Again and again same questions are asked.

Who created this image? This image was created by bronze.cn, which is a public domain. Who owns the copyright to this image? This website owns the image, and we got permission from the owner, we had back and forth so many emails with him.Dongwenliang 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• replied on talk page. Nardman1 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Nordman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongwenliang (talk • contribs)

China Fair Use Tag Deletion

Canildo said "A license template for images that would be permitted under Chinese fair-use law but not US fair-use law. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is based in the US, we need to follow US law".

I disagree with him on this point. Fair Use in this case, is a common treatment in both systems. Is Wikipedia based on US and English only? How about Canada and Great Britain and other English speaking nations? They all have different law systems. How about other language version of Wikipedia?

Please explain in pratical, how an image created in China which qualifies fair use of Chinese fair-use law would violate US copyright law here, thanks.

Lupo said “The U.S. does not apply Chinese law, and China doesn't apply U.S. law. Thus, "Chinese fair use" is irrelevant for us; we cannot rely on it. "Fair use" at the English Wikipedia is always and exclusively U.S. fair use.... This template should be deleted. Lupo 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)”

I also disagree with his point. The law of China and US are not totally irrelevant. The purpose of both laws are both for justice, fair, protection of the public and punishment the breachers.

I agree there are lots of discrenpencies between two laws. But they not always on the opposite. For example, stealing and rubery are illigal in both systems, and the right for girls to go to school are guarantted in both. Should we say that the illegality of stealing and rubbery are exclusively US illegality, and right of girls go to the school is exclusively US right???? Thank you again. Dongwenliang 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to WP:CN

With respect, I do appreciate your taking time to review the discussion and offer comments. I have refactored comments to remove boldface voting like areas Support Oppose Endorse et al. Please review this section of WT:CN regarding the boldfacing. Also precedents at this section of CN, and this section which appears to be the going rate. The boldfacing of comments could appear as voting. I will not 2RR, however I would strongly discourage what appears like vote like boldfacing. Very respectfully, Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Domthedude001/ee

I'm wondering if you'd reconsider your opinion at this MfD. You suggested that it's a good way to celebrate the holiday (Easter being today). However, if you examine the pages in question, they were formed in May of 2006 and are not related to Easter at all and are instead related easter eggs (virtual) (hidden things found in movies or video games). Metros232 03:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's in userspace, and it's causing no harm. And he did re-edit the pages before this Easter. Nardman1 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:IMG 1794.JPG

Hi,

This image has been undeleted per DRV. You should attach a fair use rationale as quickly as possible, to avoid accidental speedy re-deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cheers. Nardman1 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edd (Ed, Edd n Eddy)

Were you talking to me when you made that comment or was it to Elaich? I'm asking you this because I am not sure. Squirepants101 15:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Elaich I think. Nardman1 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent AIV report

Your report regarding Stargtr (talk · contribs) should probably be posted to the admin noticeboard, incidents subpage, or perhaps the conflict of interest noticeboard. AIV does tend to have a quicker response time, but doesn't allow much time or space for investigation or discussion. Let me know if you need any help with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Will move post. Nardman1 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nardman1

It seems that you have filed this RfC in order to get feedback on your actions and behavior. That was not the original intention for Requests for Comment; instead, RfC was created to get more opinions on a specific dispute with a person or topic. If you want a review of your conduct as a prelude to adminship, go to admin coaching and editor review programs instead. // PTO 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will go to the more appropriate forum. Nardman1 23:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tianamen beating.jpg

Hi, I changed, after I saw it on WP:PUI, this image to a fair use tag. I am sorry for all the hard work you did in providing the source, but the image is not free enough for wikipedia. It is tagged as fair use now but it's not in use in an article. So the image will be deleted if not used. Garion96 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Replied on talk page. Nardman1 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The welcome reprint and the all rights reserved are what is bothering me. Welcome reprint, does not mean you can modify the image, which is one of the foundations for the GFDL and Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if you can find a better translation of the copyright notice, please let me know. Garion96 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the image is sort of being used in a temperary article which hasn't been edited for almost two months. Basically the image is still an orphan. Garion96 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The translation you asked

Original Text: "正法度人不取费用。欢迎参加世界各地的自发集体炼功活动 明慧网版权所有 © 1999-2007 MINGHUI.ORG 欢迎转载，但请注明出处。"

Translated: "The right way to lead you to wisdom. It is free of charge. Welcome to join the voluntary meditation practice from all over the world. Copyrighted © 1999-2007 Minghui.org, You are welcome to reprint or copy our contents but please specify the source."

The most difficult word is "度人". 度 is a verb, originally means send or escort. 人 means human or people. 度人 now is always a phrase of Buddism or other Far East religion, means help other people to reach the fulfillment, eternity after death and huge wisdom of their religion by joining them. Dongwenliang 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The English word is "enlightenment". Thanks for the help. Nardman1 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is exaclty the word I should use..., you are very welcome. Dongwenliang 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Being unhappy now HAPPY

Thanks for your understanding Nardman1 - Wiki emailed and said that any articles that caused us offence and or distress would be removed as matter of priority - That Wiki foundation do not in any way wish to upset any persons or families by allowing personal details to be published. If you knew the crap we've had over the years from sicko's 'out there' you would understand exactly how I feel. It seems everyone ( including you ) have a right to anonymity and privacy yet artists and musicians are not allowed that. I do not want my or my partners personal details banded around the web no more than you would yours. As for the, 'well known people ask for it' type argument, well,believe me we are far from being Rich and Famous hence our previous album being sarcastically dubbed just that ! Hope you read and understand this. Best wishes - Stargtr

• You are welcome. I am sorry it almost came to an edit war, especially since it appears I was incorrect. Please read WP:COI and WP:BLP and tread cautiously about any information you add to articles on subjects you are personally familiar with, especially self-praise (although it appears you have mostly avoided that up till now). Nardman1 10:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead

Thank you. :)) Sorry for not posting, but I was too busy creating pages and seperating article and stuff on the Template. I just wanted the work done as fast as possible :)).

Thanks.

Regards: Painbearer 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A fake band??? Pure nonsense (Johnny Calling and The Cash)

Wow, pure nonsense? So something that I'm passionate about (singing) is nonsense to you? --RremundO 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't take my comments out of context. A Wikipedia article for a non-existent band is nonsense. Nardman1 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How did I take it out of context? And it is an existent band --RremundO 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Because I wasn't talking about singing in general, I was talking about something that shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Nardman1 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That was my singing. So you were saying that even though the songs were recorded and posted on myspace, it's still non-existent? --RremundO 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Please read WP:RS. Myspace is not a reliable source. As I understand it, the music was real but it's not a real band, just you. Calling you singing in your garage a band is fiction, and it's unlikely to be notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Nardman1 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. And I forgot to mention that you could use edit summaries a little more often. Cheers. YechielMan 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kate's tool showed me in detail how I need more edit summaries. Thanks for the review, I'll look for ways to contribute to the mainspace more. Nardman1 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't make annoyments

Nardman1, can you please stop noticing everything I do, that is really rude! I also believe that are a total thing like Checkuser. Bluwiki123 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the information about the photos. I am new to doing edits on Wikipedia, and I need all of the help that I can get. Thanks again. - Hmwith 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section

However removal of content is considered, a chronology spanning a great length is a poor way to put together an article. Please don't be an arsehole when writing your edit summaries—sometimes it isn't nice. A stock {{test}} message in response to a good-faith edit can also be rather obnoxious. I found one typo in the revision; yet you call the revision "badly spelled" as though sinister forces of ignorance were at play.

I was trying to be productive during my insomnia. I didn't realise that by so attemptimg I would encounter a fuckwit, leaping out from the Recent changes patrol. At least now I'm over insomnia; your numerous userboxes have put me to sleep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedRabbit1983 (talk • contribs). 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quest for Glory I: So You Want to Be a Hero

Mea culpa. Looks like editing Wikipedia after a long and tiring day, even after having spent two years here, may not be the brightest of ideas. For some reason, I was incapable of correctly moving Quest for Glory I: So You Want To Be A Hero to an article containing the correct form of the title; as expected, an attempted move resulted in failure. I pretty much knew I was doing something wrong when I blanked the page. In any case, I'm not touching it for the time being; would you be willing to move the page to Quest for Glory I: So You Want to Be a Hero to rectify the edits I made (admittedly in good faith)? Thanks in advance, Cromag 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy tag and for cleaning up the mess. I owe you one. I'll replace the IMDb info with the appropriate template and correct references to the stylistically incorrect title as I go. Cromag 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal question

Please comment on my note in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 27#Template:Military-Insignia (2nd nomination). I probaly opened a Pandora's Box when this began, but we might as well get to the bottom of this (said Oedipus). Thanks, DGtal 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV Posting

Please don't shout. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reports on IPs are routinely rejected with something like "no warnings today" even when I point out they are static. I was pointing it out in a noticeable way. Nardman1 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo!!

Looks like you're on the Josh Gotti train! Deiz, Agathoclea and I have been on his case for months now. If you find any new socks, feel free to add them to this list. I figure we should probably write up a community ban pretty soon. It's funny because it looked like Josh was gone for a bit... but now, looks like he's back in full force. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I first caught on the train when I nominated Fan 3 for deletion and the mis-information was explained to me. Nardman1 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Santiago Chile skyline.jpg

Could you explain a bit more? Are the royalty-free images compatible with Wikipedia policies on copyright?. The user Morsini has uploaded copyvio images of other sites, and I have serious doubts about his claims of authorship. Jespinos 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like it, but on second look the image is unuseable because of a) the watermark and b) the false claim of self-authorship. Nardman1 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot mention that the photo is an old version with another watermark (transparent watermark with the word "Kactus") and no longer available on the website. The current watermarked images are of a lower resolution and more blurry than old ones. Jespinos 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:P0YKPAC

Nice catch ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep xD. Nardman1 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

new page

A tag has been placed on Hey, Shipwreck, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Hey, Shipwreck. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Xiahou 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You do know I'm an established editor, right? :) Nardman1 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my gut said one thing and my wiki finger said another :-) Most are VERY obvious. This one had nothing saying why at all notable at the time. So I went with that instinct. When I saw your contributions I had second thoughts. I debated and was going to take it off when I got your first message so. No harm no foul. I'd put at least one link or something saying why somewhat notable in the least next time on the first edit save. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You Smoker Filth

I hope all of you inconsiderate smokers are one day rounded up together and die of smoke inhalation! 196.25.255.246 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Gee, thanks. Nardman1 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

nardman

Please stop the wikinquisition with false accusations of me vandalizing pages for questioning NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.205.252 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, the warning was for vandalizing talk page comments. Nardman1 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Jiahu Flutes.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jiahu Flutes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chick Bowen 06:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

I left you a question. There are also a couple of other questions there you may wish to look at. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, sorry I must of must your XfD work when skimming your contribs, I think if you continue you work there and get your mainspace edits up a bit you'll probably pass in the future, I'll happily nominate you in a few months with some improvements. Rehards — The Sunshine Man 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Olybrius 01.jpg

"A coin has two-dimensional art on it, one per side": no, it can be a small relief, but it is three–dimensional, not two-dimensional.--Andrij.Dunatov 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say you were splitting hairs, but I was just hammered at rfa for stating that sometimes the rules are a bit too picky. The coin sure looks almost totally worn down though. Nardman1 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it were completely worn down, it would not show any feature: it is its third dimension that actually carries the image we are interested in. --Andrij.Dunatov 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the page into my watchlist ...

And the following line appears:

(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson‎; 15:22 . . (+333) . . Nardman1 (Talk | contribs) (change sig to real time+re-add spa notice)

Do you know what this (+333) is ? Rocksaware 15:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you! Rocksaware 15:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

CHRISTIAN PARTY

I AM REPORTING NARDMAN1 AND SWATJESTER FOR VANDALISM FOR DESTROYING COMPLETELY THE ARTICLE under "Christian Party (United States"

I am askig that Nardman1 and Swatjester be banned from further editing on Wikipedia.

NEXT TIME, IF YOU SEE A WAY TO WORD SOMETHING BETTER, THEN MAKE YOUR IMPROVEMENTS. DO NOT DESTROY OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE IT BETTER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.57.118 (talk • contribs)

• Here on wikipedia we have rules, like neutral point of view, reliable sources and verifiability. Unfortunately you need to cite some sources and write in a neutral tone on this article. If you'd like to comment on this issue, there's a central discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Christian Party (United_States). Thanks. N 00:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fez

Hello again Nardman. You might wish to reconsider your comment here. I never said anything about the template being divisive or inflammatory, actually; I nominated it for deletion because we don't use it. Picaroon (Talk) 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't speedy delete work better in that case? -N 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Cow-on pole, with horns.jpeg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Cow-on pole, with horns.jpeg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Cow-on pole, with horns.jpeg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Cow-on pole, with horns.jpeg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, for some reason my links weren't working so I made the page. Go ahead and delete it. -N 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Iasson's darned socks

Where's the link to the last Checkuser involving those Iasson socks (the ones that blizzarded here this weekend)? Think we need an LTA page for this guy--need the link.Blueboy96 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[1]. If you need to know the IP ranges you'll have to check the closing admins block log (sneaky backdoor there). -N 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV request

Would you at least consider withdrawing your DRV nomination of today? So far, it hasn't found anyone willing to support it until the larger mess is settled down, including people who definitely think there were major problems in the larger mess that are calling for a delay in consideration. GRBerry 20:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I know it's become fashionable to make posts on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) complaining about something someone has done that seems wrong, but I wonder if you'd given a thought to the dispute resolution process? Perhaps an RFC on the Crystal Gail Mangum affair would help us to get this thing sorted out. If you can define your dispute in terms of failure to comply with Wikipedia policies (and it looks to me like you can), then perhaps it's time to do that. I've also suggested this to Viridae and Badlydrawnjeff. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

uw-deletion policy

This was little more than trolling. Quit it. – Steel 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If the admins refuse to deal with out of process deletions, which harm the project, then I will issue vandalism warnings and take it to AIV as appropriate. -N 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you don't, because that will get you blocked. – Steel 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for warning vandals? I'm sure that's a policy violation as well. -N 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DTTR, and consider whether someone with years on the project, a highly respected adminsitrator, might know a wee tad more than you about deletion process. Perhaps a more productive use of your time would be to seek to learn why the article was deleted, so you can learn, rather than rudely slapping a template on the page of the deleting administrator. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any vandals here - this is a really agressive label to pin on someone as dedicated to the project as Doc. At this point I would ask you to seriously step back and have a seriously hard think about the way you approach wikipedia. I have noticed that since your failed RFA you seem to have begun to act in a very unhelpful way. I think you are simply trying to prepare for the second RFA by involving yourself in more adminny things but I don't think it is having the desired effect. These warning templates are a case in point. There is a serious policy issue being worked out here on the scope of BLP and whether WP:DIGNITY should justify losing articles on non-public figures who have been subject to unwanted publicity. IAR deletions are part of the way that this is being debated - the more deletions that stick the clearer the community consensus for supporting the change. If you don't agree the way to handle this is via DRV and RFC to discuss the issues and contribute to a consensus. Templating admins is simply raising the temperature and making the eventual resolution harder then necessary. Please think on this because the sooner you "get this" the sooner you will be ready to have another crack at being an admin. My personal advice would also be to study the opposes and try and learn how to address the issues there. If you can come back and say I have learned X Y & Z and done this as a result of the opposes then your next RFA will be significantly more supported. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Regarding this edit please note that generally one doesn't add comments to closed discussions. They are closed. Adding to a closed discussion is generally against the rules of Wikipedia etiquette. I have removed your comment. -N 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider that to be appropriate and I am offended that you have removed my comment, which stikes me as gratuitous, if not downright rude, on the basis of real world etiquette. The status of the discussion was badly presented and unclear. Was anyone allowed to express an opinion? Why was it listed in the first place if discussion was prohibited? Haddiscoe 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. -N 01:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to that reply, nor is there any need to reprimand users for perfectly innocuous comments made in good faith. Please think about the impression this sort of thing gives of your own grasp of etiquette. Haddiscoe 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked through your achives, I have to say that you are not in a position to give anyone advice on etiquette. Please find more constructive things to do than upsetting other users by attacking them over innocuous matters. Haddiscoe 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, I was not attacking you, but you are using an ad hominem attack. Please consider this discussion closed. -N 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: {{TelevisionWikiProject}}

That's because class=list is not a valid option. (it's not one of the Wikipedia V1.0 recognized classes) In the TelevisionWikiProject template "list" is only recognized as a "type". Please see the template's documentation. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fractals

Hi, just want to note that the part about CDs being having fractal branching has been taged as "fact?" since 12 May,2007. Seem like noone cares or can actually prove that, so I'll be removing it in two weeks. Kirils 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sourced. -N 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

P!nk

Hi, I wondered why you edited to picture of P!nk back in her page? The pic is very vague plus it doesn't add something to the article.

Electric Storm89 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Replied on talk. -N 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• But like I said it doesn't add something to the article. This pic is already shown in the I'm Not Dead article where the I'm Not Dead Tour is decribed.....

Electric Storm89 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll do that...thnx

Electric Storm89 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Danielle Peck

I just thought that one image is enough. You put the image in a place that effected the rest of the article. I meant to cut it and paste it to a different place, but I accidentally deleted it. Please be sure to move the image where it won't effect the words, make the image smaller. LovePatsyCline 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. -N 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Coke II can picture

It doesn't need to be fair use ... a beverage container is a useful article and thus largely ineligible for copyright as it can't be a three-dimensional artwork. The logo's copyright doesn't matter either as the picture includes a lot more than the logo.

I have explained this at WP:MCQ ... hopefully no one will see any problems with restoring the original uploader's PD-self tag. Daniel Case 03:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do what you will, I, as always when I change a PD tag to fair use, am merely doing what I can to prevent the image from deletion, not arguing over its legal status. I will watch, of course, and will revert to fair use if it appears doing so will be needed to prevent the image's deletion. -N 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer

Nonsense. Using your user space as your own personal MySpace page. See WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Until then, the templates stay. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Replied on user's talk page. -N 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

_{And please cite where I "attacked" the "new" user. Furthermore, if these are violations, why did you not apply IFD templates for the images instead of doing plain reverts and then not assuming good faith when you sprouted up at my talk page?} Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you attacked them. I said they felt attacked. And if you want the images deleted, do it yourself. Just do it the right way. -N 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

just for the case …

you need to know more about that dispute you removed: see [2] on the de.wp's Admins' noticeboard. And thanks for removal, it seems to be reasonable :-) --Ü 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well I was advised so on WP:ANI. Carrying over disputes from other projects seems inappropriate. I'll read your link, except I can't understand German. -N 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Residential@eircom.net

Ah, I hadn't realised it was old enough. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

sadface icon

I was just trying to fix the corrupted user boxes. But I do agree the originals are much better.--Devin Murphy 08:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

VP

I'm so sorry about that. I did not mean to do that. Sorry. --James, La gloria è a dio 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that in game score update violates WP:NOT#PUBLISHER?

I have gotten into a lengthy and intense argument with User:Ksy92003. He thinks that my in-game score update violates the above rule. Could you explain to me about your opinion on this rule. Thanks. Chris 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• You saw my previous post. I explained my view there. What specifically are you wondering about? -N 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I like them the way they are. -N 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Interracial marriage → Miscegenation

I've closed the RfD, you can go ahead and unmerge the articles. WjBscribe 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect undone, will look at removing material from miscegenation later. -N 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment on the Carly images

Hi, I've posted a comment on my talk page on the issue of image deletions from the user page of Oh yEs itS caRly. I would appreciate it if you take a look and give your input. Happy editing. -- Diletante 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm speechless. -N 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

I've commented on the talk page of this policy, on your recent addition. It looks good, but I think it should probably be somewhere else. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Banhammer

I would like to know how my edit was not useful. The image in http://en.wikipedia.org/banhammer is totally irrelevant and misleading to the reader.24.63.28.134 21:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Automated tool

Purely an accident, I have just been running Lupin's Anti-vandal tool and was watching the live spellcheck, and the filtered recent changes, just missed it. Thanks for letting me know though. --Martian.knight 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Taylorlurker DRV

Hi,

This is not a big deal, or anything, but your early closure of that DRV was probably not the best idea. When a user appeals a userpage deletion at DRV, it provides a great opportunity for the community to educate him on WP standards. Assuming good faith (that the user is not a troll), it is worth the effort for experienced editors to hash out any concerns he might have. Even if the result is a fordgone conclusion, the discussion can serve a good purpose. I'm not going to revert you, or anything -- just don't be so quick on the speedy closure next time. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can re-open it...non-admin closures are subject to re-open at any time. But...thanks for the warning. -N 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this look familiar?

Remember this photo? On the photo page there's now a big old tag on it that says that the license is disputed, and on that tag is a notice that the person who tags it as such is supposed to notify the uploader. You did not do that. You are also disputing a perfect good photo, fully authorized by the photographer, and making totally false claims that it has no source, etc.

You should really start following Wikipedia policies on these things, otherwise it might appear that you are purposefully trying to get photos deleted without allowing anyone to know about it beforehand to defend them from your totally incorrect claims. DreamGuy 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was on my list of things to do after I got home from work. Images are listed for 14 days, it would not have been deleted before then. -N 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about adding to your list of things to do simply not tagging things incorrectly in the first place and not putting snarky deceptive comments on the possibly unfree images page falsely accusing me of violating copyright? Your comment seems to suggest that your mere labeling it a copyright violation even though it isn't suddenly makes it against the law. Perhaps you ought to go read up on such things before making those kinds of edits. DreamGuy 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Bot

Well, the TfD found those copyright tags to not be valid. That being said, they essentially had no tag and needed to be tagged as such. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Public Domian Images

This is in regards to your comment on RfA, but I wanted to ask here to avoid that RfA becoming an even bigger sprawling debacle. If a PD image is cropped, then re-uploaded, shouldn't it still be PD? I ask, because I see that you tagged the image as possible unfree, rather than simply changing if to a PD. Thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing the nom. I just haven't removed the tag from the file yet. -N 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The questions that you asked were actually all very important and relevant. You seem to undertand a lot about image tagging, which is something I am not too familiar with. I uploaded a few images recently, but went through some work, asking at the help desk, etc before uploading to avoid those ugly tags. Its interesting about the userbox issue: I like that WP in uncenscored but it seems divisive userboxes are a big no-no. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for contributing at my recent request for adminship. A few issues were brought up there. I would like to tell you that I am not anti-gay. The creation of the userbox was for other users. If I was, I would have used the userbox within my own userspace. Nor do I seek power; just more ways to help the goals of Wikipedia. Anyways, thanks for your comments. --Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. You seem to have something against me. You added my original user name (1312020Wikicop) to Rfcn, you've gone onto commons to try to get an image deleted, you've added multiple various one-side questions to my former RFA...Is there something I did to offend you? --Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Your past record will come under scrutiny and any questionable actions can lead to intense open discussion." From Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. -N 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, N! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Cause I don't know the warning that you issued is about the Gunbound article and not about others. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable licensing

Hey: quick question. This Image:Nara light my fire.jpg is listed as GFDL under the claim apparently that the uploader took the photgraph. Is taking a photograph of a work of art really valid to then say that its an original piece? I am considering listing this for IFD. What do you think? —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The only reason that it is not in use, is because I took it down. It has been in use here. Should I put it back up, then list for IFD, or what am I supposed to do with this? Sorry about the headache...I can relate as I have been trying to come to terms with copyright policy now for several days.—Gaff ^ταλκ 06:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Prod

Maybe there should be an automated (AWB, so I won't do it) {{prod}}ing of middle school articles; only the ones that are non-notable, that is. « ANIMUM » 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Electric Boat

Hi (N) it's middim13 and I not very "wikisavvy" so I'm not even sure how to properly contact you. The Plunger was indeed the second submarine built after the proto-type Fulton (of the same size and class) but the Navy choose to name the A-Class boats after the (fourth) sub built (at Crescent) and named it Adder... (SS-2) if I'm not mistaken. Indeed this is somewhat confusing because the Navy assessed hull numbers to submarines sometime after 1911 and went back to assign these numbers to all the submarines that were built up until that point... about a dozen years worth of submarines developed for the U. S. Navy. (Please check out the Naval Historical Centers web page for a better understanding of this issue, although I can't say that their "version" is altogether accurate either. But the Director of the center has been helpful to me in the past and his name is Gary Weir PhD). He has written to me a couple of times and I have donated some early documents to his museum - I don't have my documents handy and so it is "out of my memory". But there is no doubt that these first fleet of submarines were indeed called the A-Class/ADDER-Class boats! So could you please correct this on Wiki! See: www.navsource.org/archives/08/08003.htm The USS ADDER (Submarine #3 was later known as SS-3... later to be renamed A-2/of the A-Class boats. John Philip Holland's primary biographer, and Electric Boat historian, Richard Knowles Morris is our country's premier submarine historian and helped me to "set this" (and other) relevant records straight". Read The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics to understand why I have these "attacking" feelings... i.e. $900.00 for one "high quality" screwdriver etc. This book points out how the company has been "steeped in scandals" essentially since day one. The company has never been honest with the American people and is being run by the same types of individuals that overran Holland's company just over 100 years ago... i. e. corrupt financiers and pettifogging shysters etc. Also see: Who Built Those Subs? published by the USNI in Naval History Magazine Oct. 1998 125th Anniversary issue. More than happy to keep a fair and unbiased approach to disscussing this early submarine chapter with you... but I must tell you that I have done my (fair share of) research on this subject (as I am related to the man who helped to found Electric Boat). There were all kinds of false claims (made) at the early Electric Boat Company... claims some still make today... and we've got ships named after some of these characters... i.e. USS Frank Taylor Cable (AS-40) and USS Lawrence York Spear (AS-36). These men "conspired in silence" to cover-up crucial events surrounding Electric Boat's contentious atmosphere. Contact me at your convienance @ middim13 (at) hotmail (dot) com — Preceding unsigned comment added by middim13 (talk • contribs)

• Your sources don't back up your claims. The "A" in A-Class does not stand for Adder. -N 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • N, check out Electric Boat's article in Seapower magazine (supplement/advertisement) entitled: Electric Boat, 100 Years of Service to America, by former President of EB, John K. Welch. Go to www.navyleague.org/seapower/electric_boat.htm - There is a small "noteworthy" mention of Mr. Busch's (overlooked) and unacknowledged role at the company (under Robert Halmilton's page... now the Director of Communications @ EB... which does this story no favors on Busch's behalf) as others took over his position and credit. Welch's article mentions "Adder Class" as U. S. Navy's first class of submarines. See also: Second page at google under Adder Class Submarines. Mr. Welch once stated thet EB should look forward to the future as he is "not worried" about his company's past - which tells me he must be aware of the contentious facts that transpired at Electric Boat's corrupted foundation. Ironically, the company's motto is "Strength on Your Side" and that: "We Deliver What We Promise". I'm not so sure about that... as I'm not so sure just whose side they are really fighting for to tell you the truth. Their not on my "family's side" and we are Americans! They also don't "always" deliver what they promise! Look at the book: The Illustrated Directory of Submarines of the World, by David Miller; ISBN 0760313458. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.240.144 (talk • contribs)

• • To: N from: Middim13. If you check out the latest entry for Volume 86 of The International Directory of Company Histories St. James Press/Thompson Gale Publishers under General Dynamics/Electric Boat Corporation published July 2007 you will see that Arthur Busch is properly credited as a founding member of the company and that his contributions were certainly noteworthy as he translated John Holland's sketches and ideas into blueprints and steel laying the keel to the Holland VI/USS Holland. Unfortunately, GD/EB has never told the truth regarding this matter and has never publically acknowledged Busch's pioneering (key) role at their company - let alone the mere fact that he even exisisted!

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed your comment

Hi. I noticed a pretty important factual error in your comment [3] and changed it. If that's a problem let me know. --Gene_poole 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't edit my comments. -N 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is wrong. I did not call him a dick. I quoted him calling me a dick. If you're going to make statements, get it right please. --Gene_poole 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Single Letter

Hi N! See here for a group just for 26 of us. :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can't believe I was able to get in on this racket, man. -N 23:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You said "Endorse - keep this garbage deleted. extraordinary new scientific claims must be peer reviewed before we accept them, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories."

Deletion review is about the deletion process itself, not about whether we should keep or delete the article. We already had an AfD, where statements like yours were made, and a majority of competent editors voted to keep the article. — Omegatron 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:CANVAS alert. -N 14:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with canvassing? — Omegatron 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You posted on like 30 billion talk pages. -N 15:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a fair notice. He posted to me also, and I had voted to delete in the AfD. DGG 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to make new arguments in the DRV, merely trying to point out the AfD was correct because the theory doesn't pass any kind of reliable sourcing. -N 01:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You were acting in good faith and I was not.

Don't worry about it. I'm just frustrated with this whole situation. Apparently asking people to explain their opinions is "badgering" or "canvassing" now.

The VFD had been up for four days without much comment, so I notified the admins who voted in the AfD.

Anyhow, I wasn't making a delete argument, just expressing my belief the AfD was correct. -N 01:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of people in the AfD argued this way, but a small majority disagreed. 19 voted keep and 15 voted delete, by my count, and both sides had a number of administrators amongst them. So you can't claim that the argument for no reliable sources is uncontested, and you can't claim that the people voting delete were meatpuppets or otherwise incompetent users, so I don't understand how the majority for keep can just be overruled like that. Deletion policy is pretty clear that without a strong consensus for deletion, the article is kept by default. The only exceptions are special circumstances like only ILIKEIT votes or meatpuppets or vote stacking or copyright violation, which don't apply here.

It seems to me like the person who closed the AfD ignored the actual discussion and just closed according to their own personal viewpoint. I could have done the exact same thing and closed it as keep instead of voting. If I had, everyone would be up in arms, so why aren't they up in arms about this? It defies all logic. — Omegatron 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Did not know that happened. My computer acts odd sometimes, and other times, accidents happen. I will restore that, if you didn't already. I was voting support so its not like I was doing anything bad.--trey 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:US Army OF11.gif

There is no actual picture because there is no actual insignia. See the article General of the Armies for details. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Thank you for fixing me. -N 00:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a notable award

In re: Deletion review Kari Schull et al: The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|AfD for Kari Schull]] is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at [deletion review Kari Schull]. This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles. Interesting potential precedents for the application of BIO or your new proposal regarding awards, or for the reform of special case notability criteria in general. I thought that this might be on-point to your area of interest. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll look into it. Thank you. -N 20:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA candidates

I agree with you, that a history of conflict is inevitable in any active editor who engages in process or with mediation or in anything besides copyediting. And I think that one can't learn how to work here without some experience of what it feels like and how it gets resolved. But how can we say it without people getting angry about it,as they just did.?DGG 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikihermit. And, as someone else commented, hardly a user who actually did avoid conflict, & who furthermore clearly hasn't learned to handle it. DGG 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nordin image

Nadav1 cannot actually replace the image. He was merely arguing hypothetically. Rogerfgay 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peteranswers2.jpg

I removed the db-spam from this image, that is not a valid deletion reason for images. I recommend going to [{WP:IFD]] with this image. MECU≈talk 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:N/admincoaching

Finally replied. —dgies^t_c 17:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Err...

I believe you forget to sign... ~ Wikihermit 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. xD -N 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV/Translations.com

See my comment - I think it'll change your mind. -- Y not? 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: .js pages

So since you can't edit js pages, how can I eliminate the double redirects listed at Special:DoubleRedirects? Also, one of them is not a javascript page at all, but is still protected from editing. Any idea why? -Mike Payne 15:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm... Your reply on my talk page almost suggests that we're not supposed to fix it at all. As I understand double redirects aren't supposed to exist, and impede the correct functionality of the encyclopedia... Isn't this correct? I personally think double redirects should still redirect you(make the rule triple redirects I guess), but since they don't, is there a reason why they should exist? -Mike Payne 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So I can upload pornography to wikipedia provide I do it intentionally? I don't understand how the fact that it was done on purpose precludes the fact that the page shouldn't exist at all... If there is a real reason for this page, please let me know, otherwise it is something that someone has broken intentionally, and there's no reason why it should stay... -Mike Payne 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg

I uploaded 2 free pictures of Linda Lingle and orphaned this image from 3 articles it was in. However, in the 4th, Qur'an_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress#Prager_dismisses_Tanakh_Oaths, I discovered the picture did meet the fair use requirements as it is not just used to identify the person in the picture but as part of the social commentary surrounding swearings-in that aren't on a Bible. If you would, I believe you should withdraw the IfD nomination at this time. -N 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as stated on the ifd nomination, is that this image is not really necessary on Qur'an_oath_controversy... as it doesn't really helps in the comprehension of the topic in a way that words can not. --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:6aznehj.png and kin

I highly object to you "fixing" album covers uploaded by someone who deliberately falsely claimed self authorship of them. If you look at his contribution history he's not just a mis-tagging newbie, they were deliberate. -N 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But actually, was it the edit that was the problem, or the edit summary? Was there something wrong with the edit itself? —METS501 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was wrong with it, really. The files do qualify as fair use. I was just hoping they'd be deleted so that I could issue the user a copyright warning if they did it again. (Still could I suppose). You did an excellent job writing the fair use summaries. Sorry for pissing at you. -N 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me :-) Just don't forget: we never want people to do something wrong just to issue warnings and do a "gotcha!" type of block. —METS501 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The warning.

That's fine. Question: how did you find that out? Acalamari 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes; thanks! Acalamari 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: tabs.js

Hi there. That tabs.js script is kind of a packaged deal. In my case, I want to have the tabs duplicated. This means that if I want to be able to add new tabs without worrying about the ordering between adding tabs and duplicating them, I need to call a function besides addPortletLink. If you want to have just the purge and last links, you can use something like this:

// Add a 'purge' and 'last' links to the tabs
addOnloadHook(function () {
    var x = document.getElementById('ca-history');
    if(!x) return;

    if(x.children) x = x.children[0].href;
    else x = x.childNodes[0].href;

    addPortletLink("p-tb", x.replace(/action=history/, "action=purge"),
        "Purge", 'ca-purge', "Purge this page from the server cache");
    addPortletLink("p-tb", x.replace(/action=history/, "diff=" + wgCurRevisionId + "&oldid=prev"),
        "Last", 'ca-last', "Show differences between this revision and the previous");
});

This version doesn't have any dependencies and can go straight into monobook.js. Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike Dillon 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I split out the tab duplication into a separate script. Mike Dillon 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mount Tai dot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mount Tai dot.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. 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

XDEATHSTARx

I restored the history per your request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Much obliged. -N 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:2004 Poppy Quarter.jpg

I noticed you uploaded this image to commons. I was under the impression that all Canadian coins are subject to Crown copyright, so can the image be called free? nadav (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Images of money are currently in limbo on Commons. Apparently they are refusing to delete them. -N 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See, for example, this debate. In fine, it was decided that the images should not be deleted from Commons because no usage license would ever let you produce a 3D sculpture of the coins, as that would be counterfeit money. Statements in favour of deletion mostly suggested that, though the statement is true, the copyright license should not limit derivative works. And, verily, havoc ensued. --Iamunknown 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The European side of the coins is released under fairly free terms. I don't know if crown copyright is as permissive...I noticed that commons:Category:Coins of the United Kingdom says not to add recent coins. But I don't get involved in commons stuff, so I don't know. nadav (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted. If we have to we can bring the image over as a fair use image (lowering the resolution, of course). Since the image is under a free license it should avoid the problems of the other picture (potential double copyright, coin and image). -N 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Related: This ancient coin image was listed on IFD. I'm not sure if the photo is eligible for copyright, so I moved it to PUI. If you have any opinions or insights on this one, they would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved! -N 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:How much is that Hello Kitty guitar in the window.jpg

Excellent work! Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Welcome. There are actually several images of the guitar on Flickr, but (I hope) this one isn't considered derivative since it plainly shows a shop selling several items. Plus there's an ugly car reflection in it. -N 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Banhammer

Hello. I guess what I was trying to say was: outside of slashdot and similar websites, where is it used in that context? It just seemed rather grand to be in the intro paragraph. I agree about the citation issue. Thanks for taking the time to write me about it. All the best. --Bobak 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the context where I hear it all the time, internet forums (of which I'd even extend Wikipedia as a large-scale version), was already included. I guess this is what I get for being an old coot when it comes to games. --Bobak 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode template

I feel I need to clear something up with you. While I don't totally disapprove of TTN's tagging, it's way more than I thought he would be doing. My thoughts were that we would apply the tag to a few groups of episodes and be able to tweak the whole system, including the template, as needed. I understand that most of your frustration is with TTN's mass tagging, and I want you to know that wasn't meant to happen like it did.

As far as my speedy closing of the TFD, you must understand that our policy for TFDs try to prevent a template from being targeted independently when there are larger processes at work. While the exact guidelines for the template had not been finalized, the template itself had a consensus. Trying to snipe a developing process before it has a chance to properly represent itself isn't giving the situation a fair chance. It was for this reason that discussion on the template should have gone to the talk pages setting up the episode review process. This would not have changed if someone else made the template.

Matthew has been a very disruptive user in the entire episode article debate (documented on several talk pages, and I can provide links if you wish). His nomination of the template comes minutes after he saw this message left on my talk page (message at 23:38, 24 June, nom at 23:44, 24 June). His nomination was out of spite, and his reasons were flawed "The main purpose of this template is to set a deadline of when a page must be "cleaned up"" (exactly what the template was not meant to be. I set out to make it so an episode article would only have to show the potential, and not require cleanup). "The template is the result of a messy and long discussion at Wikipedia:Television episodes" is clearly misleading, as the discussion there has been very productive for all involved. He even cites NPOV for a cleanup template, and calls it unencyclopedic, despite that the wording comes directly from {{notability}}.

Knowing this, is it really unreasonable to you that I felt it more productive, more fair, to speedy close the discussion? If you still think so, then I respect that, but as I said before, I would have done the same thing if someone else made the template, and I was simply passing by. In any case, I'm sorry to have reacted harshly to you. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I understand you are acting in good faith. I accept the apology although I wasn't offended. If I said anything offensive I am also sorry for it. I understand you are working as part of a larger project with this template. You should not be offended if the community questions the use of a new template on so many articles, however. Work with it, grow with it.
• As far as TTN's actions go, I'm glad he doesn't represent the entire project. And I know you are trying to invite editors to engage you in dialogue on the project page, but some of us have full plates in other matters (I'm kind of learning how to do image copyright for example) and really can't join a new project. -N 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Well, actually, i used to be a barman in a bar and i was called the Shooter Boy often so i hope this clears :) --Blah 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

re TfD notice for {{Jew list}}

Thanks. If I had my way, this kind of notification would be a mandatory part of all XfDs. Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Afghanistan

Hi, thanks for explaining your use of nowiki for that situation. Basically, that website was blacklisted under strong suspicion of lacking copyright on many of its articles and images. The approach has been to replace the cais-soas citation with a citation of the real source (usually Encyclopedia Iranica). If the document in question is native to cais-soas it shouldn't be used anyway (WP:FRINGE, WP:RS). Anyway, I just went through Wikipedia yesterday and removed all links from the articles and deactivated links elsewhere (aside from archives), replacing with 'citation needed' where necessary.

While the issue was discussed on a number of pages, including the blacklist-related pages (where requests for unlisting were rejected), perhaps the most complete post for more information on the problems with that website is here: [4]

Thanks again and sorry for the confusion. The Behnam 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

EndUN Userbox

Hi, you recently participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN discussion. I have reluctantly submitted the closing statement by User:Tony Sidaway for deletion review. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1#User:DieWeisseRose.2FUserboxes.2FEndUN. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Welcome :) -N 10:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

TTN and Ned Scott

How can we deal with those two? Angie Y. 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Go to WP:RFC and start a user conduct request for comment. I will support it. -N 10:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy photo

I saw that you replaced the photo of Cillian Murphy with the higher-resolution original; but the thing you didn't notice was that these were two different versions of the same photo. The original uploaded by the photographer was cropped so that Murphy fills the frame of the shot, as is appropriate for the Cillian Murphy page. The version you replaced it with was not cropped; therefore, when viewed on the page, his face was very small within a big photo -- his image was reduced in size! Therefore, I reverted back to the photographer's original file. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melty girl (talk • contribs)

• Roger. -N 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD notification

First off I apologise if this is considered an attempt to "vote-stack", but I think it's a slightly different issue since you already" voted to keep the article George W. Bush pretzel incident back in March...it's now back on the AfD list, despite it's earlier "Keep" verdict - and I'd appreciate an extra voice if your opinions are unchanged. It is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination), much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SVG logos

Hi, thanks for the notification of listing Image:NBC logo.svg on the WP:IFD. I noticed that you listed several other SVG logos there too. SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so therefore does not create a derived work. Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were keep and keep. SVG logos are appropriate for fair-use in Wikipedia. As such, I have voted for 'speedy keep' on all four of your nominations. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image_talk:Gudi_flute.jpg

Take that, stupid flute! Trying to be all elusive and hide behind copyright, y'know that ain't gonna work. Nice job, N! I think I'll G8 that discussion now ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another sock of Roitr?

Sorry, I was already offline when your msg arrived. Anytime Roitr appears the best thing to do is to report him asap to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This will get him banned within minutes and to all the images he uploaded you can add db-banned|Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr inside these brackets {{}} and they will be speedily deleted. best regards, --noclador 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:TTN

As per User talk:Mets501, AWB access removed for TTN until the conflict is resolved

Reedy Boy 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Digby

read it but couldnt figure out what you wanted to do. it looked like the result was that there would be no article at all, because it seemed to me you could just have edited the existing one. I'll delete it now. DGG (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

and, stupidly, I didnt realize it was you--or i of course would have realized that you knew very well what you were doing !! DGG (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

done--by the way, I noticed his most "translated book" is a pamphlet. I'm now trying to clean up the spam from the bio of his wifeDGG (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Please READ WP:CSD and speedy deletion tags BEFORE you use them. Image:AABofficeA.jpg has NOT been tagged as unknown source for over 7 days, which is a requirement for an i4 deletion. -N 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an orphaned image with an invalid tag and no source or permission information of a door. I don't figure it's ever going to be used as it's corresponding article has been deleted per consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your cavalier attitude towards established policy appalls me. And it is not an invalid license tag, a COI editor probably did take that picture himself. -N 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, You need to WP:AGF, saying I have a "cavalier attitude towards policy" isn't assuming good faith and is borderline WP:NPA. Secondly, The image is orphaned and the page itself, which it was meant to occupy, has been deleted per consensus twice, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A A Baig & Co., Chartered Accountants. The image will be deleted in a few days regardless and I was trying to speed the process up. The image had probably even been created and deleted before hand when the original article it went to was deleted for the first time. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: TfD nomination of Template:Advertising-section

You wrote: Um, why did you even write that template? -N 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking the time to type "Um" in this way is rude. Were you looking for an answer to your question, or just looking for a way to be rude? Demi ^T/_C 23:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was being sarcastic, yes. I dubious of the template's encyclopedic use. I was not aware the Foundation was considering allowing paid articles. If I had been aware of this I would have been shocked rather than sarcastic. Sorry. -N 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Iris pic2

In that case, can you please apply the same logic to Image:BlairKoizumi.jpg and remove the red tag/do whatever to let the picture stay, as although both are still alive they are no longer Prime Ministers and thus will not be pictured again in all likeliness. John Smith's 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, how should this picture be treated? It is in wide use across the internet, even on professional websites. I have found it on flickr. Could it be counted as being in the public domain? John Smith's 19:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've figured out where it comes from. It was taken for the cover of a book and obviously the higher-res version found its way on to the internet. Does that mean it would count under a book cover, or what? John Smith's 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you already have a nice, unfree picture taken from her website? She doesn't even have a website. John Smith's 20:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang. Why would I want to post another picture if there's already one on wikipedia? John Smith's 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read the fair use tag, I came across this statement.

"If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent."

It doesn't say impossible, just difficult. So why does the mere possibility of replacement invalidate a fair use tag? John Smith's 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well actually I couldn't easily travel to see the person because in this case and the case of the other photograph deleted (Mineko Iwasaki) their addresses are not public knowledge. John Smith's 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was just pointing out a statement you made was incorrect - don't be irritated over that, please. I wasn't using it as a reason to justify my position. John Smith's 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

If there are licensing concerns with the BWB image let's resolve that. You could have notified me rather than just nominating it for deletion.

However... what are you THINKING claiming Image:Boeing 777F.jpg is replacable with a fair-use image? Please pay more attention to the details when you nominate this stuff. Georgewilliamherbert 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Libelous accusation

N, please reconsider your attitude here. It's completely libelous to state that I have a "history of being uncivil in fair use discussions", and it's completely false that it's "a fact the arbcom has found true". Please read the ongoing arbitration case. There's no diff provided so far me not being civil. There's no final conclusion on the case as well. Do not post such blatant misinformation about me (or about any other editor) anymore.

And in general, in ifd discussions, comment about the content, and not about the editors. --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have now corrected my statements. I apologize for saying you've been "uncivil" in discussions when in fact arbcom is proposing saying that people "see" you as being "incivil". I guess that one letter makes a difference. -N 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. It was wise and noble. The "incivil X uncivil" part is actually not as much important as saying that the arbcom found that fact to be true. But it's all ok now. Best wishes, --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cisco Images

I spoke with the VP of Marketing for permission to use these photos. Cisco wants to allow Wiki to keep all the linksys and Cisco photos but also wants to preserve their rights as the copyright holder.

No one specifically told me what rights to ask Cisco for, so I asked for what I thought was needed and they told me that was covered by the URL. If you would tell me exactly what Wiki wants (they will not put them in PD), they would grant them. So please let me know the least amount of rights acceptable and I will just call them next week Cisco. Please do not delete these photo, allow Cisco 1 week to respond to the request. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Looks like my OTRS permissions have started to come through, though it seems they're still lagging a couple of weeks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for getting those images

Thanks for tagging and removing those images on the death erection page. I came across that page for the first time just before you got the photos off, and was trying to figure out what the deal was. --Allen 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if a warning would be possible, per Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles... let's just hope they don't fix the sourcing so we don't have to think about that. --Allen 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubyfruit Jungle

Hiya, my edit of the above page was reverted and flagged for vandalism. Although it sounds a bit outlandish, it is certainly part of the scholarship, as the reference I included would indicate. Even if it is disputed on accuracy or relevancy, I don't think I deserve a vandalism warning. Thanks. 65.96.92.140 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

N̈

Hey, I blocked the user per your report...but just curious: how did you find them so fast? Jmlk17 05:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah you clever single letter username people! Thanks for the report! Jmlk17 05:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iamunknown Proposed RFA

Hi N. Just to let you know - I'm a Brit so my time zone is UTC + a bit of summer time , however if lamunknown accepts we should be able to co-ordinate - if that is your wish - to sort out his RFA. Pedro |  Chat  21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Let's start the page now, yes? :) -N 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry N, went to be. Have you made a start ? Pedro |  Chat  07:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, waiting for him to accept, I guess. -N 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All good. We'll await his acceptance / decline! Pedro |  Chat  07:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:NATO vs Warsaw (1949-1990)e.png

I have no problem with this image being deleted. Why though did you consider it "unencyclopedic"? --John 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's basically a test image and it looks ugly. It is "unencyclopedic" because it's unsuitable to put in an article in the encyclopedia. -N 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. You are right, it was created as a test image during an attempt to make a better map for the Warsaw Pact article. Calling it "unencyclopedic" and "ugly" seems superfluous though, and unnecessarily impolite. Best wishes, --John 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just explaining "unencyclopedic". It is commonly used during the image deletion process to describe images that aren't useful. Although I admit it was a neat test. -N 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hemingway

Meh; I have no irons in that fire, just helping out someone who appeared to be confused. I noticed the artifacts, but didn't think they were all that noticeable at the scale rendered on the page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper guy 999

Hopefully my post here is satisfactory?

Anthøny (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good. Not sure who the user is but it's an adequate warning. -Nard 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did you pull out of your RfA? ~ Anthøny (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did! -Nard 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the inclusion of examples in the NFC criteria

It's the non-experts I have in mind in trying to make the criteria themselves as short and simple as possible. Cordonning off the examples is a key way of doing this. Tony 07:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MCQ

Oops, I meant the deletion tag! sorry! :P -Nard 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha, oh, I was wondering! :) You never know what kinds of crazy things people will do with the slightest persuasion hehe - cohesion 01:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner

What did you mean by "Quadell is the one who left it pretty much as is"? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WPCD images

The increasing image rules of course keep catching images which complied when submitted. I suppose that's inevitable but as you seem to know the rules you could help. The images have been published outside Wikipedia in that the charity SOS Children has produced, printed and distributed a large number of copies of this cover. That's called publication, isn't it? Personally (as the charity's CEO) I don't mind releasing the CD cover under a free licence (we have already given a general permission for the CD to be freely copied in entirety) except that it contains a non-free licenced charity logo (and in the case of the 2007 version it contains the Wikipedia logo as well) and I am not sure how to licence it without giving someone the opportunity to recover the logo and call it derivative. --BozMo talk 06:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See talk there: I think you have misunderstood, simply. SOS Children is an independent charity which does not work for the Wikipedia Foundation or anyone else. The first CD was SOS Children publishing the content from wikipedia on the basis of use under the licence. The 2007 edition was more of a joint WMF and SOS effort (with most of the work done on site rather than off site, WMF agreeing to the brand use, and indeed WMF promoting the disk to others). That make sense? --BozMo talk 11:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the template. I should also acknowledge you are doing a good job chasing down images: its a thankless task generally. Thanks --BozMo talk 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Xiaochangliang-site.jpg

Thank you for your detailed explaination of the policy. Dongwenliang 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Googoosh

Googoosh.tv is a Fan site and not a reliable source. If you follow the links you will be redireced to some photos and non-english and non-related material.I think the user who has added these links is not familiar with the concept of citation. So could you please revert yourself and remove googoosh.tv citations. Thanks. Arash the Archer 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
		For the great catch on Iraqi public domain laws - nice work! Videmus Omnia Talk 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Woohoo, my second barnstar! (I should frame them). We'll see if Commons keeps the image though. -Nard 00:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Translation

Sorry my Arabic is not very good. But as far as I understand the translation of Fatwa is not word to word but is good in general. I don't think I can help you with Iraq copyright thing. It is too long :d. User:Tariqabjotu may be able to help. BTW thanks for reverting in Googoosh. Arash the Archer 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner

hi, can you help me how to avoid the image from being deleted?Salmoria

• Replied on talk. -Nard 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Serbia1918.png

I do not understand ? It is possible to deleted images on commons for wiki administrators or ...? Rjecina 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Make the deletion request at Commons. -Nard 03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner

hi, can you help me how to avoid the image from being deleted?Salmoria

• Replied on talk. -Nard 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Serbia1918.png

I do not understand ? It is possible to deleted images on commons for wiki administrators or ...? Rjecina 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Make the deletion request at Commons. -Nard 03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC

"User repeated reverted to his inappropriate "speedy close" of his "dated episode notability" template on TfD despite myself and another editor telling him it wasn't proper."

Nard, I'm a bit confused here. I thought this matter had been settled, or at least is no longer an issue. I tried to explain to you my rationale for the speedy close to you here. I've also tried to explain that the closure was completely supported by the deletion instructions at WP:TFD. And yet you've come to assert that this is somehow bad behavior, when I was the one following process? -- Ned Scott 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I never viewed that as appropriate conduct, and it is not "following process" to close a deletion discussion for something you were the primary editor of. It no longer was an issue when you ceased edit warring over it, however it is relevant to the current RfC and I don't see anything wrong with bringing it up. -Nard 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but WP:TFD is rather specific on the issue. -- Ned Scott 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amy picture discussion

Per the Amyphoto.jpb image discussion, at which point is it necessary to remove the deletion tag. I'm willing to write her parents, or ask James Renner to ask her parents - if it is "free use", but that isn't the point of free use. There seems to be a push to get a GFDL, and GFDL isn't appropriate for a murdered little girl - nor should the parents be forced to remit ownership of her image to Wp for that. She could wind up on an article about 'anything' and that's not ok. How can this be closed? Will you please watch out for the outcome?BlueSapphires 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs - I'm quite a busy person, and doing this only out of a sense of exasperation, and sympathy for Renner. VO targeted Renner (put him up for COI and BLP and also nominated the amy article for afd). Once I looked into it, I saw that he'd made 3-4 other disputes in one week, including not 1, but two RFCs (Ryulong and Alkivar). Besides that, he has 2 open ANIs. This is not standard. After talking to anetode, who told me that for free and fair use, it is only required that we determine copyright owner-I've decided to email Renner to do the footwork on that determination. I don't have time nor energy to call/write/fax parents, and ownership determination should be fine. I am not in supportive that this should become GFDL, for the above reasons (murdered girl/potential misuse); if you want to contact the parents and try to encourage GFDL, then that would be your option. BlueSapphires 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you

• Thank you for disentagling the sources for Image:RomanDoricOrderEngraving.jpg--Wetman 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Welcome. -Nard 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusations

sorry I don't know what are you talking about! the computer I'm using is also used by others and some people know my password maybe you posted the comment above for the wrong person.-Salmoria 02:19, 22 July 2007

Amy Mihaljevic

Thank you for your help fending off these puritans. Please check back on Amy periodically to make sure everything is okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs)

Good hunting

Good luck on your deployment, brother - stay safe. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks man :) Although it'll be a little safer than going to Iraq, I'm going underwater :P See you in a few months. Take care, delete all those copyvios for me. -Nard 10:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg

I re-added to their articles (founding them from seeing the contributions of Howcheng). Take care!--Pejman47 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays

I love it! Thanks!! -- But|seriously|folks  21:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Bmg.jpg

The image was not copyrighted. It was not made by or taken from Blue Man Productions, it was made by a member of the fan community who happens to be a close friend of mine. I demand a further explaination if this does not get you to undelete the image. --Bmg2282 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The source URL clearly indicated the image was copyrighted. It is the responsibility of an uploader to explain why something he uploads is public domain, and if he uses a source URL that says something is copyrighted Wikipedia has no choice but to delete the image. If you feel the deletion was improper, list the image at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Nard 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

{{deprecated}}

Template:deprecated is part of WP:DOT, which is an attempt to clean out some of the 25,000 unused templates. It should not be deleted. --MZMcBride 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DOT

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion and the decision was to create a subpage for unused templates. What are you doing? --MZMcBride 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of transparency you need. This is a wiki after all, nothing's secret. This page is available to everyone. The system detailed on the page marks the template for everyone to see (in big bold letters). The original author of the template is notified (nothing hidden there). And there's an objections page available for anyone and everyone to comment. I'm rather confused. --MZMcBride 16:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I simply object to the entire process. I know you are trying to help Wikipedia, but if it's not based in a policy page it shouldn't be used for deletions. Simple as that. Out of process deletions, even if there is a process but one you invented, should not exist. -Nard 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the DRV note, I've commented there. If DRV doesn't endorse the closure it will likely be a relist and if so I will recuse myself from the debate, personally I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on how/if DOT should be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner

hi there, sorry for that, but why can't I use that picture? i added a fair use rationale. did you delete it????? Korb

PD-font doesn't apply to logos

With these edits, you marked Image:Gen Con logo.svg as {{PD-font}}. I've reverted it. PD-font says, in part, "This does not apply to vector format images of fonts, such as SVG." The image is an SVG, so PD-font is inappropriate. Furthermore, the image is not just some text. It's text in a specific arrangement and mix of sized, some horizontal bars, and a drop shadow. Maybe, per the US's amusingly weird font copyright exceptions, the letters themselves can't be copyrighted, but the layout, color, decision to use drop shadows absolutely can be. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the logo above could have been trademarked (although it doesn't seem to be), but it's not enough creative material to be eligible for copyright. There have been many similar cases where companies have tried to claim copyright on a few words in a particular style, and these are routinely rejected. {{PD-ineligible}} is probably correct. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag's text is misleading. The "font in SVG format" it's talking about is the copyright on the font itself, and only if you directly rip off the original font coding, as it's computer programming. The image of the letters themselves, no matter how expressed, even in SVG format, is ineligible. -Nard 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello. The SVG font question is interesting. Stuff I read seems to indicate new vector fonts are now (since early 90s) copyrightable, but my presumption has been that the SVG logotext images meant to imitate existing images as accurately as possible do not have any new copyright status. Has there been any discussion on Wikipedia about whether vectorized images carry any new copyright? nadav (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Nintendo doesn't retain copyright of the logo? ←Ben^B4 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• US federal law. -Nard 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems and [5]. nadav (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those discuss "flags, coats of arms, seals, and similar official symbols," not corporate logos, and "mere variations of typographic ornamentation," which is less than the composition in the SNES logo. Even if you're right, we are still required to make the presumption in Wikipedia:Logos#Guidelines. ←Ben^B4 05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The SNES logo consists merely of typographical ornamentation; I don't see how you think it's more than that. The words "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are ineligible; all that's left is typography. The logo guidelines do not (or should not) require us to presume a copyright. Trademark is another matter. It would be better if they were not treated under the same bullet point, since people tend to confuse the two, and we really ought to have a separate template for PD, but trademarked, logos. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

According to the template on your talk page, you're part of the US Military. If it's not too much trouble, can you please add your name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch? Thank you for your time and have fun editing! Jumping cheese 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:BTC img1.gif

Although you said "The user's identity is confirmed by OTRS on their talk page", that image has no talk page. I looked for OTRS ticket numbers before placing the tag. They are exactly the sort of information we need. Do you know the OTRS number for that image? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I don't see anything thre about a rights release, only a link to an OTRS note that the account was a role account (which is why the account is now blocked). I'll have someone look up that OTRS ticket to see if it's actually a release. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to #wikimedia-otrs on IRC (freenode) and asked for a verification of the OTRS ticket. The response I got was that the ticket is not a release of copyright. You are free to contact the BTC to ask them for permission, but we don't need special permission anyway as the image falls into our nonfree use policy. I'm going to remove the "withpermission" tag from the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please!

I haven't done anything all day yet. Skymac207 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Back?

Are you back, or just stopping by for a quick visit? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I got deletion tag again about the Xia and Shang Bronze

Hi Nordman1, I got deletion tag again from Fred. As you know I got permission from the owner to use these images on Wikipedia, and I don't know why I still get these tag repeatly. Can you please help, thanks. Dongwenliang 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use and "for wikipedia" use does not mean free use. I thought Wikipedia worked to move away from fair use images, unless they were absolutely necessary? / Fred-J 10:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also no fair use rationale, so how to tell whether the images are essential in the articles they are used in? They don't appear to be essential in History of China. Other images of ancient remains can be used. / Fred-J 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this. The new rules are too friendly to deletionists. -Nard 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyleft stuff

Hi I didn't notice you left a comment on my talk page until just now. Sorry I didn't respond in so long.

Anyway, I disagree with your comment about my edit being a "little more than trolling." At the time when I inserted the "citation needed" tag I probably really thought more sources should have been included: the article didn't convince me that by definition copyleft allowed more things to be done than copyright (honestly). I was not editing "with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response" [6], I was just trying to make the encyclopedic value of the article greater. I'm sorry for the confusion. --Horncomposer 07:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks

Just a note for the Wikibooks admins, I would like to rename Wikibooks user Nard to N. -Nard 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Much Texas

Could you please stop tagging this photo? Please have a look in the history, this photo was tagged in October for deletion and it was decided NOT to delete it. Could you please respect this decision? Thanks. Kekslover (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tejero golpe.jpg

Hi, I saw your question to Quadell on his talk. I restored the image for you and tagged with a generic fair use tag. It of course needs a rationale now for every article it is used on. Passing all the WP:NFCC criteria etc etc. :) Garion96 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Image restored. Let me know when you want to re-delete it. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: User:Q-Bah

It's not my rules, its policy. From Wikipedia:CSD#General_criteria 8: Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist. This excludes any talk page which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, talk pages for images on Wikimedia Commons, and talk subpages (such as archives) whose corresponding "top-level" page exists. (emphasis added) --Michael Greiner 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1,906 pages of 173,116 asteroids

21-Jan-2008: I wonder if you are interested in the subject of merging asteroid articles. Almost a year ago, on 11 February 2007, you had proposed an AfD for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/120901–121000". After checking the wikilink counts, I have confirmed that the questionable 173,116 asteroids are, actually, wikilinked twice, because they are stored in 1,732 articles of 100-asteroids each, then transcluded to be wikilinked (again) into 174 articles of 1,000-asteroid lists. The total of list articles is: 1732+174 = 1906. Internally, the Wikipedia page-link databases contain entries for "What links here" and count every article, including those articles which transclude the contents of other articles or templates. As a result, even though asteroids 1001-2000, in ten 100-asteroid lists, generate only about 3,000 wikilinks to dates and discoverers, the repeated grouping as an overall article "List of asteroids/1001–2000" re-links those and generates another 3,000 wikilinks with that overall article. For all 173,116 asteroids, the total wikilinks are (approximately): 173,116 asteroids * 3 wikilinks * 2 sets of repetition = 1,038,696 (a million) wikilinks. I wonder if, as an alternative, those 1,732 articles (of 100-asteroid lists) should be merged as internal data (not transcluded) within the current 174 articles of 1,000-asteroid lists. To ensure precision, the astronomy people would probably perform the merges. Anyway, are you interested in this topic? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War Propaganda Deletion in Commons

You have a message to be read. I'd appreciate an answer. Regards, --Góngora (Talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:StormTracker 94.png

The image is used on Stormtracker94's user page as a header, it is not under copyright nor is the image that is used in it, it therefore can be uploaded to Commons. Why did you ask for deletion? --Chetblong^{T C} 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• It appeared to be a derivative image, complete with a (TM) in it. -Nard 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The ™ at the top is for looks. --Chetblong^{T C} 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Please do not revert my images and tell me I'm inventing licences. This has been discussed with permissions, as I said. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Your" images? The file was uploaded by a blocked sockpuppet with a fishy license. Why wouldnt I suspect it? -Nard 11:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry that I was snippy with you. I was annoyed when I wrote the above.

The image had been wrongly tagged. I added the correct tag, which is PD-author, along with an explanation, and a note that permissions had been informed. At that point, it became my responsibility. You tagged it again as a copyvio with the edit summary "sorry SlimVirgin you cannot just make up licenses for images," [7] so you had obviously seen that it was me who tagged it, not a blocked sockpuppet. It would have been nice if you could have assumed good faith of a contributor who's been around for years and has tens of thousands of edits, that's all. Anyway, no harm done. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 and Now

Hi you just reverted my edit, no reason given. The link given in the article for the rather dubiously precise hundreds of thousands figure refers to a point in time. No other source is given for a number of players. Is it not better to say January 2008 (when the article was written) as this vague number will certainly change?--ZincBelief (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see mysteriously enough you reverted both edits I made, without any explanation. The edit about the XKCD is a straightforward reading of the text of the comic is it not? I don't see what is wrong with what I wrote there.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:NOR. Interpreting the comics is a matter of personal opinion. Also, this article has had problems with people inserting their own opinions and lack of sourcing which lead to its repeated deletion in the past. We are attempting to keep that from happening again. Also, the articles cited are from different times. "As of January 2008" is not factually accurate. -Nard 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No the article cited for the figure hundreds of thousands is only one in number. Which other articles do you think the figure comes from? I also don't think I can be said to be interpreting the comic. I mean you have read what the comic says right? "you have just won the game. it's ok. you're free". This is what the article references. To then say the latter comic talks about winning the game, and not losing it, seems to be a straightforward statement of fact to me. Perhaps you could outline what my interpretation there was. Thanks--ZincBelief (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not going to debate this with you. I see from your edits today multiple other editors agree with me. -Nard 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You could just give me an answer. You appear just to be reverting for the sake of it to me. I've stated quite clearly my reasons for editing the article. You have not disputed that they are valid. If you don't contest that I will change back.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUR

You non-administratively closed the fair-use review of Image:NotreDameFightingIrish.png since it had been deleted; however, it was only deleted because it has been replaced by Image:NotreDameFightingIrish.svg which is being even more egregiously abused. Would you re-open the review noting the replacement image? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• No need to relist it. I'll get it sorted out myself. Thanks for pointing this out. -Nard 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

no title

Hey, you accused me of vandalism, then threatened to ban me. The only edit i made was taking out someones name and "FTW"... I was REMOVING vandalism. Go look at the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettlivaudais (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• This edit was your only contribution, so I can't very well check out anything. -Nard 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Somnabot

Hi. Would you mind explaining your recent PRODs of Somnabot's user page and its subpages? Some of these may be worthy of deletion - I haven't reviewed all of them - but I'm having a hard time seeing why we should delete the user page, user talk archives or sandbox of an active user. Thanks, Scog (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• He's not particularly active, despite having edited a few days ago. Furthermore I went through his image contributions and found a huge amount of copyvios. Then I went through his sandboxes. I found one that was an outright attack page, which has been deleted. The others amount to using Wikipedia as personal webspace or copies of articles that have already been moved to mainspace. -Nard 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but in that case you should have just prodded the sandboxes containing inappropriate material, not everything in his user-space. I'm going to go through the list and remove the prods I disagree with; of course, if you really feel strongly about this, WP:MFD is still open to you. Scog (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am Somnabot. As I see you are a member of the United States Armed Forces, may I remind you that military servise is not the only reason a user may be away from Wikipedia for long periods of time. My occupation is as much obligatory as it is time consuming. I understand that sometimes while attempting to improve our edit counts, we all make an occasional mistake. However, I respect the freedom my user page lends me to express myself, and archive my work as an editor of Wikipedia. I would appreciate you demonstrating the same respect. Furthermore, regarding your unexplained deletion of My sandbox: Had you taken the time to research this particular page, you may have found prior discussions such as this one and this other discussion. Despite the disclaimer template which appears at the top of the article, these discussions should have given you a significant advantage in investigating this compilation of information's existance. In case you missed it, the disclaimer template looked like this:

This is NOT a Wikipedia article. This particular sandbox is used to compile a range of information about a political candidate for the United States House of Representatives. All information within is sourced as well as possible, with much of it coming directly from the El Paso Times. This information is being compiled in anticipation that this candidate may win the representatorial election, and thereby be notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

I also ask, that the next time you feel so inclined as to delete my user page, please leave a note on my talk page with an itemized list of proposed pages. It's just easier for me not to have to go through page by page looking for your handiwork. Thank you for your understanding. Somnabot (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Ramones album cover.jpg

Hi. You did not address the disputed fair use rationale in the tag I put on this image so I put the tag back on. The image is not fair use in the article punk rock as the tag says. -Nard 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I removed it from the article. Someone else put it back See this diff. Perhaps they would be more qualified to address the fair use rationale. Melesse (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons ride image

I've added an explanation on the image's talk page.--Snowman Guy (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Woohoo! thanks! At least today I had a holiday from the freedom fighting :) Have a great day too! -Nard 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Username

Hey Nard. You should probably recreate the N account, so that you control it. There's a significant chance someone else will create the N account as a new user, and you held the N account for a long time, so it will probably cause confusion. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IT'S YOU

Hi. Rehevkor ✉ 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gah, my worlds are colliding. How'd you find me? -Nard 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Double redirect

{{editprotected}}

• This protected page has been detected as a double-redirect. User:Nardman1 is a redirect to User:N, but that title is now a redirect to User:Nard the Bard. --RussBot (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons

I have nominated Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Files that are not in the Public Domain in their country of origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your copyright paranoia disruptive.

Excessive paranoia about copyright infringements is often times disruptive within the wikicommunity. While a certain amount of preventive action is necessary, I strongly oppose simply deleting an entry for "presumed" copyright violations such as you did with File:City16.jpg and nearly every other image I have submitted. Was I not such an understanding individual, I may even accuse you of specifically targeting me, my user space, and my work.

Sometimes it is not necessary to delete an entry unless the alleged copyright holder complains. Given Wikipedia's potential liability, after a complaint, immediate action may be necessary, although later correction is possible. But it is not Wikipedians' job to excessively "police" content for copyright infringements, especially when such may not even exist.

Rather than trying to improve your edit count through shamelessly reporting "violations," may I suggest that you focus your efforts on individual articles that interest you. In the mean time, I suggest that you read through [essay on Copyright Paranoia]. There are many valuable points to learn from it. Somnabot (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry but Wikipedia has zero tolerance for images that are not copyright free. "By courtesy of" images are not free enough and will be deleted. -Nard 19:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Longtailedskua93.jpg

Details added as per request jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples and trivia

I don't understand how a list of examples can be considered a trivia section ("miscellaneous information")... Would you care to explain? (Or kindly remove the banner yourself). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• The list is much too long and constitutes a trivia section. Please see Wikipedia:Trivia sections. -Nard 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. Size doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere. Pleas cite the passage saying that a trivia guidelines are for long lists. Plus you haven't explained how a list of examples is automatically trivia. In my opinion the examples are about as far as you can get from "miscellaneous".

Until we reach consensus on those matters, I'll cite a section of the said guideline I think is relevant:

"In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." (Emphasis added)

I really think presentations and references to mermaid reproduction is a very narrow theme. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to think so too until so many examples were found. I'm going to try removing some of the ones that don't directly refer to reverse mermaid. That might solve the problem. -Nard 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

henry ford

Thank you for your interest in the Henry Ford article. There seems to be a copyright violation. It has been reported. According to that board, it takes a few days to process. According to the tag instructions, copyright violation tags must not be removed. Please don't remove it. Once the issue is decided, I am all for resolving this issue. I don't like tags anymore than you but it's just part of the wikipedia process. Again, please don't violate the written policy/instructions prohibiting premature tag removal. Thank you. 903M (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence of an expired copyright, please do post it here! I want to know. 903M (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Time_(magazine)#Public_domain_issues. You are more than welcome to click the link given there and search for copyright renewal yourself on this issue. -Nard 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

if youre' going to add to my report, please comment that you added to my report. It would also be of great value for you to segregate the diffs you added by setting each up with its' own 'original version to which the reverts were reverts. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

718 Bot

Hello, you do realize tis is a bot run by an admin? Dlohcierekim 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you please check out the thread at the bottom of my talkpage? I'm not sure why you're reverting JPEG/GIF images back into some articles, as the PNG images my bot's uploading are superior in every way. I also addressed your concerns about copyright violations there. Thanks. east718 // talk // email // 02:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

db-I2

Would you mind holding off on tagging images for db-i2 for now? There was a software error that caused some images to be deleted. They may be recoverable but if the image pages are deleted it will be harder. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, continue tagging them, it will be better if we just don't delete them, but use the category for tracking. Mr.Z-man 20:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Epic Records logo.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Epic Records logo.svg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pomodorovaticansphere.jpg

Thanks for putting the {{non-free 3D art}} on the above. I didn't even realise that template existed so had been scrabbling round for something to get rid of the deletion notice all to no avail. Now i know! Cheers, extraordinary (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

re:Earthquake anim.gif

This image has been released into free license by the website I found it on, see Image:SpinningA.gif, please. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wpdms_nasa_topo_cheyenne_river.jpg

Regarding this edit on User talk:Decumanus, Decumanus (aka Matthew Trump) is no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia. He had explained previously (prior to the current standards for tagging images) that he created all of the images he uploaded. I'm not sure what the appropriate description would be to add to the pages to make that any clearer. He (the uploader and copyright holder) released them under terms of the GFDL. What else is necessary? older ≠ wiser 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• No. We do not need an article on Ms. Onyango AT ALL. She has lived in obscurity and has shied from the cameras. Per WP:BLP we should not have an article even if the media has taken a passing interest in her. -Nard 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg

Someone just deleted Image:TrangBang.jpg because it was tagged, its an iconic image used in 5 articles. Do you have the link of where to go to get an image restored. There isn't a lot of thinking going into some of the image deletions, it reminds me of the iconoclasts from 1,000 years ago. Now they are using the reason that the image rationale has to be formatted in the new template to not be deleted, when all they have to do is move it to the new format. Fix instead of delete is my motto. And thanks for the tip on the new tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

UAA Report

Just a quick heads-up about your UAA report. You accidentally included an extra pair of double brackets, which caused it to display wrong. I've corrected it for you. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Koolhoven-FK58.jpg

Mistagged an image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I explained on the image page why I believe the license is incorrect. -Nard 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_8#Image:The_River_War_Unabridged_edition_2_Vols.jpeg)

Hi, I noticed you were the only person to comment on suggested deletion of the above image. While I can't honestly say I exactly remember what the image was which was deleted, I noted your argument that we should not have restricted images of public domain objects. This struck me as rather odd. The argument, it seemed to me, is that there are not restricted images of items which it is possible to photograph currently. Only some 10,000 copies (possibly 5,000, I havent an exact figure on a suggested reprint) of the two volume edition were ever printed, more than 100 years ago. It rapidly moved to re-publication as one volume. Thus it seems quite difficult to obtain images of these rare beasts.

Now, as the image seems to have been deleted, I can't say how it was originally licensed, which might shed more light on your arguing for its deletion? Sandpiper (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• It was licensed with one of the non-free fair use tags (can't remember which one). There never was a free license, or a source given, for the picture. Under WP:NFCC#1 it doesn't matter if a free picture actually exists, just that one could be made. I suggest looking in your local university library, they may have a copy (even if it's not available to check out) or try finding a picture that is itself old enough to be public domain. Regards, -Nard 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV

This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's regarding various Matt Lee articles you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban poster.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban poster.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I'm not unclear what your justification is for uploading this painting [8] from here [9] into Wikipedia. It appears to me there are not one, but several copyright problems here. Could you explain? Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is no copyright violation of this specific version, the case of Bridgeman v Corel states there is no copyright violation in a mere reproduction of a 2 dimensional image. The painting itself is copyrighted, true, but Wikipedia is using it under the fair use doctrine. If you believe its use in a specific article is not fair use you are of course free to edit that article and remove it. -Nard 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It seems that Bridgeman v Corel does not apply, as it reads "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright"

1) This seems to fail in that the original image was probably not in the public domain. 2) Unfortunately, the source which you used [10] is no longer available online, so it isn't possible to see whether the image is an "exact" copy. 3) I don't know whether or not an image which is of a reduced size on the Wikipedia page qualifies as an "exact" copy? I'm actually trying to understand a much larger issue, here, so feedback would be welcome. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no new copyright in an exact copy, period. True the case was about public domain works, but the general principles apply, you cannot copyright someone else's work when you are merely making a copy. Of course technical modifications such as change of size don't matter, because then any technical change would infringe copyright, which isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the painting itself on Wikipedia qualifies as fair use, which of course varies with context. For more information you can read Wikipedia's guidelines on non-free content and explore various links from that page. Again, if you believe Wikipedia is not applying fair use, you are free to edit the article the painting is used in, or you may be able to request deletion of the image but that's not likely to happen, the image is fair use in at least some of the articles it's being used in. Unfortunately I have no control over which articles it's being used in, it's a constantly changing wiki. Only vigilance by concerned users keeps Wikipedia in check when it comes to fair use issues. -Nard 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)