User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive 4

User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive1 User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive2 User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive3

About your Image Tagging

Hi I just wanted to let you know that the tagging you are doing is really messing up the picture size.

Examples of your work can be seen, at Wolverine (comics) and The Sensational Spider-Man (vol. 2).

Could you please fix this so if you do tag and image it does not make the whole page look bad, thanks.Phoenix741 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I have fixed the problem my self so you will need to go through the history to find it.

In response, don't rant at me, rant at TWINKLE's authours, because thats how the tagging was done. I'd like to know why it broke images in the articles as well. ShakespeareFan00 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me I was not ranting, If I was ranting I would of done a better job of it. Also in the pages that the images were on, you added {deletable image-caption|1=Saturday, 21 July 2007} to the picture, now for the regular pictures it seemed to work, but for the images in the Superhero-boxes it was different. When you added that in, you messed with the image sizing (as I had said before) thus increasing the size of the images on that page. Some even to the point where it took up the entire page.

Now in response to you being so defensive, I think you should chill out, all I was doing was pointing out an error in the mass edits you made. Since you seem know what your doing maybe YOU can talk to TWINKLE's authours and fix this problem so I don't have to go through articles and fix them up.Phoenix741 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, it's a feature. Fix the problems with the images and delete the tags, and the article will be back to normal. There's no reason why these messages need to look good, so long as they are visible that's enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, Just a note. None of your tagging is showing up anywhere except in the infobox codes, and the image code. Atom (comics) has a good example. it's putting the info inside the image source and dispaly code, just like stated above. Please correct this, so that regular editors of such pages can easily note the problem and not miss it because it's hidden in the code, and because subsequent edits have hidden the summary. Thank you very much. ThuranX 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Image was taking up THE ENTIRE PAGE, and that takes away _{from this tini text}. I was just being nice and pointing this out. You all don't have to go on the defensive or anything.Phoenix741 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem, and thanks for looking into the problem well to avoid it again. Honestly I have a problem with fair use rational ([1]) so consider me not doing it a protest 8-). Now that being said I don't plan to like vandalize this site because of it(wana keep it civil). But yea. Again thanks and sry if I appeared to be ranting.Phoenix741 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR, since you're the one using the program, and you're the one hearing multiple problem reports, why don't you shut it off, ask the programmers to review the issue, and then use the fixed version? Thanks. ThuranX 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Hi shakey, I'm returning the piece you plonked on my talk page by mistake. The two images do have relevant fair use included - i.e. magazine covers - and I find it incomprehensible why you have behaved in this way. I await your explanation. Thank you.Harrypotter 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Black Voice 19-3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Black Voice 19-3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the name of the page being either that of the publication, or that of the organisation with the image fitting in on the section with the title of the publication is quite enough detail for any person. Why is this not the case?Harrypotter 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpile logo deletion

Hi, I was just wondering why you've tagged the Dogpile logo I recently uploaded for deletion - I was uploading a new version of the logo, and the old version was never tagged for deletion, so why this one? Tom H 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous

I think you are getting carried away with your targeting the insertion of logos or bookcovers. Such excess serves to drive away valued users who actually make contributions. (In my case, they are very substantial.) Your tagging the logos in question borders on silliness as the "rationale" given for such things as the "Olympic Games Rings" is pure, unadulterated bullshit. While I'm certain you are sincere, and not a dysfunctional on a power trip, if I may, I'd suggest you get together with those interested in these "Copyright" mastters and sort it out before you run around with more of this. Or, you might even use your time to create an automatic "paste" for a bookcover or logo as in fact and in law, there is only one "rationale." appilcable to all. Thanx. - Handicapper 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. However, instead of continuing on, use your abilities to organize a simple system. You gave an example of a "Bokk cover" rationale, so why not start with that? We all do our "thing" at W but we need to recognize the world runs on people doing what they know best and have an interest in. I have zero interest in creating "rationales" for any article and if required to waste my time on such things when they can be easily "cured" by a "tag", would quit contributing. Too, in this day and age when presentation is everything, it is essential to understand that if Wikipedia is to compete, be accepted, talked about, credited, valued and the like, then not only is content important but the use of logos, photos, and other colorful demonstrative tools is ESSENTIAL. Handicapper 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some tags are formatted to allow for the tile plus | relevant information. Why not do that for a bookcover? It would make things efficent and easy, avoiding aggravtion and needless work by you and others. Also, re Ruffian as an example, the publisher's name is meaningless because until recently, the hardcover/softcover versions were, 99% of the time, put out by two different publishers. The ONLY information Wikipedia requires is the ISBN number which is permanent and leads to everything needed: appropriate version/publishers name/date/country. Again, I suggest you put this out to others and coordinate a simplified process. Thanx again. Handicapper 15:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man

Where do we go to discuss the proposed speedy deletion of Image:Amazingspiderman50.jpg? I can't find a link at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, on the image page, or at Talk:Superhero. I'm finding it hard to understand how a low-res promotional image that illustrates the character being referred to an encyclopedia article, in a non-misleading way under fair-use guidelines stated explicitly on the image page, is problematic. Thanks for any link to the discussion. --Tenebrae 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. I did provide fair use rationales on the two images you flagged, but by that logic we could lose something like 90% of the comic images, since they don't have such an inclusion. Someone backtracking and marking them all could take weeks.

Asgardian 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpoint

Hi link is now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#2000_AD - didn't know it had changed. I am travelling at the moment and on wikibreak, please make necessary alterations. Vizjim 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Yes, these are my own pictures. However, I am not conversant about uploading of pics for Commons. Let me get on to that and I shall be uploading some of the pics. As regards the Kumortuli pics, these are meant to go with an article on Kumortuli that I am presently preparing. Kumortuli is a neighbourhood of potters in Kolkata. On their own the photographs may not make much sense but I am sure it will be attractive with the history and details of the neighbourhood. Maybe, I will take a day or two to complete the job. With regards - P.K.Niyogi 11:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

svg uploads

Sure thing, I'll set up an account on commons when I get a chance. However, there seems to be a problem here with uploading svg files - sometimes, they upload without a preview. The image itself is fine, but all the previews read as blank, transparent images. I don't know if that's a problem at my end, or with wikipedia's preview generator, but if I can get it working, I'll happily go through Images_that_should_use_vector_graphics and redo as many of them as I can.

Timeform

The source for photos of Timeform magazines comes from their website which is in the References section of the article. Technically, incorporation is Portway Press Limited, but Timeform is a registered trade name/mark Timeform official website but I don't know their ISSN number. Handicapper 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. Handicapper 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KoreaCyclingFederation.png

A rational was provided. Suggest you read details on image page properly before commenting. Mauls 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've still not heard back from you as to what your problem was with the fair-use rational I provided...

Mauls 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UGH!

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I honestly appreciate you questioning my fair use rationale. It helps a lot.

Powerpoint screenshots

The images you tagged are simple Powerpoint screenshots- a bunch of Powerpoint boxes for the diagram, Powerpoint screenshots to represent things like ships etc. and inset photos from the public domain US Govt Document -The Army Engineer in Vietnam, The U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, VA. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS- Office of History and US Army: http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/Vietnam/Sharpen/index.htm#contents.

Image:Wdogart.jpg

See the message I've left on this images talk page regarding the source of this image. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zayface

Yeah, I know I did wrong, and I am sorry for it. I guess I saw him as a way to get back at all the people who had spoiled the book early for people, a chance to make a difference.

May I ask, so as to avoid future confrontations, how do I go about reporting somebody like that? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete NC images for deletion

Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

di-no fair use rationale tagging of KOR main character images

The following images was tagged {{di-no fair use rationale}}:

As user Quasispace has graciously added the non-free use rationale tags, I presume that's enough to prevent deletion. If not, please let me know.

madoka 09:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Play4.png

hi youve sed theres no fair use rational, however in the box underneath this on the pictures page it sais a screenshot is acceptable

Image:Contra (arcade game).png

Did you create a speedy deletion for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Contra_%28arcade_game%29.png, or did someone else? If you did, under what rationale? - MSTCrow 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure this was done correctly, it's not listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_in_category. - MSTCrow 02:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure if you've used the correct template. You are not listed as an administrator at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/P-Z#S. I don't think non-admins should be listing delete dates, as they do not have the authority to carry out speedy deletes. - MSTCrow 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged using WP:TWINKLE - Take it up with them if non admins can't list deletion dates the template TWINKLE uses needs changing. Sfan00 IMG 13:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for your modifications to Wikipedia, not TWINKLE. If TWINKLE is not correctly processing speedy delete requests, you should not use TWINKLE for this purpose. As you are a user of TWINKLE, it is your responsibility to ensure the software is properly applied, not mine. Normal users can only request a speedy delete; they cannot mandate a speedy delete. Falsely implying that one is an administrator, even accidentally, can be problematic. - MSTCrow 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging quesiton

So I kinda made a very, very small start on Fair Use-ing some of the tagged images and I was wondering if the little notice warning of deletion underneath the picture in the articles goes away automatically or do I need to remove it manually? Thanks, --Farosdaughter 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to remove that manually, don't forget about removing the warnings from talk pages as well, use edit summary " Image concerned has rationale, thus considered good faith to remove warning". Sfan00 IMG 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another tagging quesiton

Could I just ask if there is a reason for your crusade against video game covers and screenshots? Would it not be easier for you to actually give them a rationale yourself? All video game articles benefit from cover images and screenshots which can be a lot more descriptive than paragraphs of text. The same rationale applies to all such images and all are being used fairly. The problem is, the boilerplates seem to already give good enough reasons so most people don't even realise there needs to be anything more. By deleting all of these images (which is surely what is happening - not everyone is on here every day checking to see if people have deleted their contributions), you are basically vandalising the articles and taking away images that not only add interest to wiki but genuinely show what cannot fully be described in text so are essential. I understand you would prefer everyone who contributes to fully understand the ins and outs of every rule but that is never going to happen. How about you just let people know for future reference that a seperate rationale is required and add a few lines yourself? It would surely be more beneficial to wiki to have valid, interesting images that do abide by the rules than none at all. Retro junkie 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. - MSTCrow 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Someone's Trying to make a Name for Himself

By being the cop on the beat for rationales for fair use of copyrighted image materials. Well, just add my complaint to the literal pages of complaints you already have for doing a completely asshatted job of it. On a lark I found some of your vandalism on the "Mortal Kombat 4" page. Not only are your tags improperly formatted, and do not follow wikipedia policy for proper discussion and feedback, but you are tagging articles that ALREADY HAVE RATIONALES ATTACHED TO THEM!! I don't know how much more plain I can make this. You're doing an awful job, you're wrong, and you're making Wikipedia worse. You should take your bot down permanently, and go sit on your hands for a period of no less than six months so you don't keep doing harm to the wiki. Hopefully you'll develop some better sense during this period of time. 24.128.63.214 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the image in Mortal Kombat 4 that was tagged doesn't have a fair use rationale. Leebo ^T/C 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to complain. He's tagged a bunch of images I've uploaded twice now. Apparently providing an origin of the image and explaining it's a low quality cropped scan or screencap to help better illustrate a character along with text isn't good enough for this guy --HellCat86 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FURG and WP:NFCC 62.56.123.61 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Adraktas - ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR

WP:NOT a sopabox - You would do better uploading this image on commons. Sfan00 IMG 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

SoApbox? Like in Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, London?

You are using strong words !!!
Pity, as you are not looking at the OVERALL picture and how its parts tie up together: 
The ENFIELD 8000 ELECTRIC CITY CAR ( E8000ECC ) 
Electric Cars in general,
and the Environment ( Clean Air, Global Warming )
See how the current Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, is looking at the OVERALL picture
(a) With Electric sockets on Parking meters, for Electric Cars to charge their batteries
(b)and by excepting Electric Cars from the Central London Levy every internal combustion car has to pay
One might say, however, that this is because he is closer to Shakespeare than others!! !

Constantine Adraktas 07:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unspecified source for Image:GP00.jpg

The original description already got enough information of where it was published and take, I have added more information and hope that it helps more in the situation. MythSearcher^talk 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe tag added

Hi Shake,

I'm very new to adding material to Wiki but struggled through and added the tag to the image I uploaded. I believe all is good now.

Andy

HotU

It's probably overkill to remove the HotU template from open-source games, where there can be no copyvio issue. Nandesuka 13:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extern links

If you remove all extern links from an article, as you did with Bank Street Music Writer, please remove the section heading for external links as well. We don't need empty sections. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange LIne Pic

The Orange Line picture on the Jamaica Plain page was shot from McBride St., looking south.MarkinBoston 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Shields of Ontario

Hiya. I've uploaded the three Highway shields (Highway 129, 144, and 407), and they are in the pubic domain as it has been over 50 years since the shield type was first made (March 1, 1930). I've also made them in Photoshop myself, and i have no issues with anyone using them for whatever reason they see fit. I highly doubt they are a violation of copyright. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOTU

It is inappropriate to pre-empt a template deletion discussion by already removing the template everywhere. At any rate, the discussion resulted in the template being kept, and therefore it may be used on articles where appropriate. I have undone your unilateral removal of every instance of the tempalte. If you disagree with its existence, I'd suggest you request a review of the deletion debate. >Radiant< 09:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of why your indiscriminate removal is wrong, Seiklus is freeware and therefore legally hosted on HOTU. >Radiant< 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. However, In many cases the information given the Hotu link was duplicated by other less controversial links like Moby games, In some cases the Hotu Link was replaced. I find it strange that copyrights are enforced in respect of of on-wiki material, but that it remains acceptable to link to copyvio's on Hotu ( The few notable exceptions noted).

Sfan00 IMG 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to copyvios is not actually illegal (otherwise Google wouldn't exist); hosting copyvios is (which is why we don't). That is not to say we should make it a point to link to copyvios, but our primary duty as an encyclopedia is giving people the information they want; if we know of an external page that has more information than we do, linking there is usually a good idea. Note that gived the nature of the internet, we aren't really protecting anyone's copyrights by refusing to link to pages in violation; it's just treating the symptoms.
At any rate - ideally, we incorporate all the HOTU text in our articles, and get rid of the links. But that's a long-term strategy. Replacing HOTU with Moby or something else is fine dependent on the information available on both; I'd prefer linking to the longest of the two, in individual cases.
And happy editing! >Radiant< 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case in similar point, you tube links :( Comments welcomed. ShakespeareFan00 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example or two? It would seem that many youtube links are self-promotive in nature (e.g. people recording their own stuff and putting it there), and that youtube links that are copyvios don't really have any information in addition to the copyvio, so we don't really have a reason for wanting to link there (for the same reason that linking to HOTU is better than linking to Abandonwarering, even if linking Moby is better than linking HOTU). >Radiant< 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Fort Rosalie image problem

I added an image for RFA Fort Rosalie A385 - the larger version doesn't seem to come up for people not logged in with id's - the message says an image isn't uploaded, but you can see the smaller version on the page itself. Any suggestions? Steel city ady 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack

Remember that coatrack we discussed? It's being fixed because somebody wrote a new article about the actual coat (Mourning sickness). Thanks for the heads-up! >Radiant< 09:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Question

You have added some image deletion warnings to my page and I was curious if I could remove them now that their fixed? Also, are we allowed to remove these warnings at any time? Thanks Trainra 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image SR King Arthur poster.jpg

You drew my attention to a copyright issue on this image.

I have no wish to get into a a discussion on the thorny technicalities of copyright, especially where the corporate body involved no longer exists and the date of death of the author (if he is dead) is unknown.

I could not change the license on the original so I have re-uploaded it with a fair use rationale, as you suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsorelli (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tobyMac removal of youtube links

Why did you remove the links to YouTube? Is there a policy that none of the other editors know about? Jac_roe^Blank 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your use of "explanation or rationale" explanation to delete images.

I will try not express my anger, but I cannot understand why you deleted all these mugshot. I admit I haven't been editing Wilipedia that long, so my "explanation or rationale" may not have fallen into the exact physical format of the “template” you linked. However, all the required information was there. I included the correct Mugshot tag this time, I included links to where the mugshot appears at the Clark County District attorney website. I explained why mugshots were allowed under Wikipida policy. How then did I not give a Rationale???? Since I only have time to edit wikipida once every few weeks, I didn’t realize you marked these for deletion until it was to late. Now I have to re-due all these images AGAIN. This is the second time you pulled the stuff. I think you have some personal objection to capital punishment and made some excuse to delete my work. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean that and encyclopedia shouldn’t include information on it. SHAME on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sigsumeidsi

~~(please consider removing this after reading as strictly this isn't Wikipedia business)~~

I still have the IRC logs and the Wikia site still seems active. Would you be willing to consider allowing the logs to be shared with semi-professional linguists? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~Yes – Gurch 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

Wikinews audio recordings

Dear ShakespeareFan00: Indeed, I am the very same person (User:NicholasTurnbull both here and on Wikinews). How may I be of assistance? BTW I should expect to have my first News Brief recording up very shortly. Let me know if there's anything specific that you want me to do. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sigsumeidsi

Do you still have the VERY prototype sandbox edits you made for this? I did do a wiki search and didn;t find them :)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nak – Gurch 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShakespeareFan00/Film List

You're welcome. ~~I know I'm not supposed to mess with other users' pages,~~ but when I see a page where an editor is obviously trying to create an accurate reference list, I can't help myself. I've heard of Wikipediholism, but I don't think anyone has yet diagnosed my affliction: Disambiguphilia. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the page and realized that you invite corrections. Whew! You could turn a lot of those links blue by lowercasing the articles (a, an, the) and short prepositions (on, of, in, at). --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deletion of Rescue at Rigel External Link

Do you have a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or blacklist that supports your deletion of the link to the Rescue at Rigel page at the Underdogs website? You made the charge that they support warez. The page they have on Rescue at Rigel is a good one and I don't think that page has anything to do with warez. Just want to know more about the grounds for your edit. DanielM (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I question your across the board removal of all links to the Underdogs site. What policy are you enforcing here? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home of the Underdogs

Hey, could you respond here? There's a discussion about your removal of Home of the Underdogs links. It's best to discuss changes like this before doing mass removals. The Home of the Underdogs often includes a lot of useful information, for example on the Tactics Ogre entry. I've never downloaded any software from HotU, but I often use it as a resource for information. Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2008-02-13 18:35