Please note: I like to keep all messages related to a discussion in the same place. So if I started a talk on your page, post your replies there... I'll make sure to watch the page for updates! Likewise, if you started a discussion here, I will post my replies here instead of on your page. Thanks!
You're supposed to post a proposal to both page's discussion pages and then wait a decent amount of time, like a day, rather than a few minutes. And merging a large article into a smaller one is ... bad. This isn't quite bad enough to just undo it all on you, but you've messed a bunch of stuff up here. Georgewilliamherbert 06:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I can undo it all, I was just trying to clean things up, but other things got in the way halfway through the process. Both articles are very messy, and nobody else was working on them so I was trying to clean them up. If you want me to roll everything back I can. -- Foofy 06:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I undid everything, it wasn't too much to roll back, see Talk:Multitier architecture#Cleanup and merging. -- Foofy 07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- And BTW, wasn't trying to make such a mess, just a newb biting off more than I could chew. Sorry, and thanks! :) -- Foofy 07:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
You're a bitch foofy. Stu 12:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Very good edits on Steven Curtis Chapman Page. Stu 12:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The source link provided on Image:Ballmer gates.jpg cannot be changed to the Flickr page because the source I got it from (a blog), links directly to the image URL instead of the Flickr page, Sorry. You might want to contact the original uploader and see what they can do. — Wackymacs 07:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman talk 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all, and no personal offense meant or taken. Best wishes! Durova 19:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Yo. Not sure what you did with your recent edits to Tutankhamun, but I think your browser accidentally broke some of the foreign language links. It looks like it was unintentional, as it only hit the links which use non-standard ascii characters. I'm guessing your browser didn't like the characters as written and converted 'em into something it could understand. Figured you'd wanna know. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Eh, don't worry about it. Not like I'm gonna flip out or anything. Just a personal preference, not a hard, iron-clad rule that MUST BE FOLLOWED or anything. Just stating what I'd like to see, if the other person is amenable to such. If not, no biggie. I'm pretty laid back. I mean, seriously, if the worst thing that happens to me in a day is that someone leaves me a comment on my page in response to a comment I left on their page, welp, I figure I'm doing pretty good. =) → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 00:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Foofy. I think you still need to place a link to the Lahore Marathon problem page on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 20 page. I don't see one there. It may be a multi-step process, like listing an AfD. Regards, David Hoag 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, it's actually listed on the
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 19 page. Now about the press release law stuff, have any links? The whole "press release" and promo materials stuff has always confused me, and it would be nice to clear things up once and for all... :)
Foofy
06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. I see the reason for my confusion: the problem is listed on the 19 November page; however, the link at the top of the Lahore Marathon page says it's on the 20 November page (at least that's the case for me; it may be because I'm in California and Wiki is set to GMT). This appears to be a Wiki coding glich over which users have no control. As for the copyright status of press releases, I remember from my journalism days that there were several court cases where issuers of press releases tried to claim a copyright when material was used in sources they didn't like. (I think one of the cases involved Mother Jones magazine.) In each instance, the court shot down the copyright claim. There is also some discussion of this issue
right here on Wiki. Best,
David Hoag
16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- However, the site with the
Lahore Marathon material has a
policy page: The site visitor agrees not to alter the presentation, reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell, distribute, publish, broadcast, circulate or commercially exploit the information in any manner without the express written consent of the Pakistan Post Office. That looks clear enough.
Tearlach
20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- We don't know that's the original source, however. That site could've built their article around the same possibly public-domain source from which the Wiki article was built. After all, post offices aren't usually in the business of running marathons; therefore, it's not unlikely some postal employee creating the webpage merely copied that text from another source.
David Hoag
21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- After much Googling I am only able to find the exact text on that post office page. The text was probably written by the post office to accompany the "collector's" stamp, I know the US post office does something similar. The policy page is pretty clear, and it's best to assume all rights are reserved until proven otherwise. Sure, it could have been stolen (however unlikely, it's a government post office after all), but that's even more reason to keep it off Wikipedia, there are policies on accurately identifying sources.
Foofy
22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. User
Ombudsman has kindly written an entirely new article about the Lahore Marathon so this seems to resolve the issue. Regards,
David Hoag
23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Best move. Your whole theory is extremely fanciful. As Foofy says, if you find something on a government website (and governments have very good legal departments) you can assume it belongs to them and that it's covered by the general terms of use for that website.
Tearlach
23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tearlach, Tearlach, Tearlach, my friend, I would suggest instead your reliance on the crack efficiency of government is what is extremely fanciful here. I think the forensic evidence indicates the webpage in question is likely not the original source. Why? How would the writer know the skies were blue? And why doesn't this crack, hyper-efficient wing of the Pakistani government and their "very good legal department" have a better copywriter if they're so on top of things? ;) I suspect the webpage was created from a paper or faxed press release and not something online. The bloke at the Pakistani postal service needed to write something up, so he rang up the marathon people, and they faxed over a press release. Crib, crib, crib, the webpage on the lovely marathon is created. Remember, there are whole worlds out there Google cannot search nor reach, particularly when it was never online to begin with. This is only conjecture on my part, but the webpage in question reads like second-hand material in my opinion. I was a journalist for a good while, and I can usually smell a crib job. In sum, there's too little evidence here to really tell what the story is one way or the other, but the chap
Ombudsman who was so kind to rewrite the whole thing was the real hero here. Best regards,
David Hoag
05:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I see it, this wasn't a debate on whether the article should be removed or not, rather a discussion on the legalities of press releases. Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Like I said, since we can't prove the source, we can't prove the license, and we definitely can't use it on Wikipedia. Clearer policy would help, do you have some sites with info on press release licensing? Thanks! :)
Foofy
05:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. See
Talk:News_release for discussion of press release licensing.
David Hoag
07:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Yep. All the speculation doesn't matter. Given that detailed history checking would probably get into
original reseach, the only thing they'd care about at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems is that it's on the Pakistan Post Office website, covered by that site's blanket assertion of copyright.
Tearlach
12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- For purposes of Wikipedia, yes, one must presume copyright unless otherwise disproven. I don't disagree with you there. However, as a practical matter, in the real world, people assert copyright all the time over material in which they have no copyright. For example, if you buy a copy of Encarta, published by Bill Gates's Microsoft, you'll find all sorts of public domain material thereon, e.g. The Bible, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, etc. etc. etc. And attached to each page is a copyright notice saying that the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, etc. is copyrighted by Microsoft. If you go to the Encarta webpage, you'll find the very same thing -- Bill Gates claiming copyright over The Bible and The Declaration of Independence. Regards, David Hoag 19:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Yep. All the speculation doesn't matter. Given that detailed history checking would probably get into
original reseach, the only thing they'd care about at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems is that it's on the Pakistan Post Office website, covered by that site's blanket assertion of copyright.
Tearlach
12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. See
Talk:News_release for discussion of press release licensing.
David Hoag
07:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I see it, this wasn't a debate on whether the article should be removed or not, rather a discussion on the legalities of press releases. Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Like I said, since we can't prove the source, we can't prove the license, and we definitely can't use it on Wikipedia. Clearer policy would help, do you have some sites with info on press release licensing? Thanks! :)
Foofy
05:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tearlach, Tearlach, Tearlach, my friend, I would suggest instead your reliance on the crack efficiency of government is what is extremely fanciful here. I think the forensic evidence indicates the webpage in question is likely not the original source. Why? How would the writer know the skies were blue? And why doesn't this crack, hyper-efficient wing of the Pakistani government and their "very good legal department" have a better copywriter if they're so on top of things? ;) I suspect the webpage was created from a paper or faxed press release and not something online. The bloke at the Pakistani postal service needed to write something up, so he rang up the marathon people, and they faxed over a press release. Crib, crib, crib, the webpage on the lovely marathon is created. Remember, there are whole worlds out there Google cannot search nor reach, particularly when it was never online to begin with. This is only conjecture on my part, but the webpage in question reads like second-hand material in my opinion. I was a journalist for a good while, and I can usually smell a crib job. In sum, there's too little evidence here to really tell what the story is one way or the other, but the chap
Ombudsman who was so kind to rewrite the whole thing was the real hero here. Best regards,
David Hoag
05:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Best move. Your whole theory is extremely fanciful. As Foofy says, if you find something on a government website (and governments have very good legal departments) you can assume it belongs to them and that it's covered by the general terms of use for that website.
Tearlach
23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. User
Ombudsman has kindly written an entirely new article about the Lahore Marathon so this seems to resolve the issue. Regards,
David Hoag
23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- After much Googling I am only able to find the exact text on that post office page. The text was probably written by the post office to accompany the "collector's" stamp, I know the US post office does something similar. The policy page is pretty clear, and it's best to assume all rights are reserved until proven otherwise. Sure, it could have been stolen (however unlikely, it's a government post office after all), but that's even more reason to keep it off Wikipedia, there are policies on accurately identifying sources.
Foofy
22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- We don't know that's the original source, however. That site could've built their article around the same possibly public-domain source from which the Wiki article was built. After all, post offices aren't usually in the business of running marathons; therefore, it's not unlikely some postal employee creating the webpage merely copied that text from another source.
David Hoag
21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- However, the site with the
Lahore Marathon material has a
policy page: The site visitor agrees not to alter the presentation, reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell, distribute, publish, broadcast, circulate or commercially exploit the information in any manner without the express written consent of the Pakistan Post Office. That looks clear enough.
Tearlach
20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. I see the reason for my confusion: the problem is listed on the 19 November page; however, the link at the top of the Lahore Marathon page says it's on the 20 November page (at least that's the case for me; it may be because I'm in California and Wiki is set to GMT). This appears to be a Wiki coding glich over which users have no control. As for the copyright status of press releases, I remember from my journalism days that there were several court cases where issuers of press releases tried to claim a copyright when material was used in sources they didn't like. (I think one of the cases involved Mother Jones magazine.) In each instance, the court shot down the copyright claim. There is also some discussion of this issue
right here on Wiki. Best,
David Hoag
16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The important thing here is "source." Microsoft's inaccurate copyright claims are invalid because we know the true origin of the Declaration of Independence--which allows us to determine copyright. If we don't know the source of the Lahore Marathon article, well, you get the point. We have to assume press releases are copyrighted unless the source indicates otherwise.
Besides, because Microsoft and others do it doesn't necessarily make it right. To be fair, the blanket copyright labels in Encarta are probably the result of technicalities, not evilness. And in the version I have, there are no copyright labels on the few PD materials I looked for.
BTW, I'm going to drop the indentation because it's tedious and unnecessary (we're all talking about the same thing after all)! Foofy 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
In my view galleries on Summer Palace and similar fall under Wikipedia is NOT an image gallery which is a commonly used basis on which articles are deleted. That's because the numnber of images is so out of balance with the text that the text is becoming just a token entry to justify the images.
I've actually got plenty of Chinese tourist images, many better than those currently in the article, but I didn't want to start a war by replacing images or deleting them. These, often poor quality snapshots are generally there for vanity reasons, so people don't like it when they get removed. To back the poor quality claim the Summerpalace02.jpg has a white level that is around or below #808080 (that's more than two stops underexposed). That one was correctable, but only with a valid licence, and, whilst it was still in excess of requirements, I was prepared to correct it if I legally could.
Anyway, I think Summerpalace02's seven days is up now - in fact, I think it may have been up when you added the notice, I can't understand why the uploader hasn't fixed it (unless its a photo of a photo or his English understandning is very poor.
-- David Woolley 09:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Major landmarks such as this deserve a reasonably sized gallery of high quality images—the best that can be found under a free license. I agree with your points. There are a few too many images for an article this size, and the quality is pretty bad (especially compared to some of those beautiful Flickr images). I love the gallery, and I think it should be kept... it sparked a whole new interest in a place I have never heard of!
- That said, we should do what we can to make Wikipedia better than what it is—even if that involves some pruning and replacing. Let's go ahead and remove the unnecessary images and replace the poor quality/unlicensed ones. If we put our reasoning on the talk page, most will see our improvements and help back us up in the case of vanity problems. It's not like this is a subjective debate, everybody can see there are quality problems in those images. We don't have much to worry about except the vanity nerds, and they usually don't put up much of a fight. :) Foofy 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
You missed flagging the use of Summerpalace02.jpg. I've fixed that for Summe Palace -- David Woolley 09:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, the category used to be even more POV. There was an edit conflict back in August when it was created, with one person saying that WP:NPOV doesn't apply because it's "true Christianity". Good times, good times. The Literate Engineer 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well hopefully I'm not alone in thinking it's a bit silly. I showed it to a few specific friends, and they all thought it was rather biased. It's funny because they're all conservative Christians who avoid Wikipedia for "liberal anti-religion bias." :P So I can't be too far off with the CfD.
- Besides, worse that can happen is the vote fails and I get flamed to death. :) Foofy 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Vote-failure and a flaming? Join the club. About a week ago I got flamed for "hating baseball" when I nominated the list of baseball jargon for deletion. The Literate Engineer 07:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a lot of list cruft and one-line articles out there, and people get pretty defensive about deleting them but won't lift a finger to expand or enhance the article. There's just this general "deleting is bad and if you wan't to delete you have a vendetta" vibe or something. I think pruning is good, if the stuff is really important a more evolved version will appear soon enough. Foofy 07:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, I haven't. Partly it's that I don't think there's really anything wrong with a category of people who identify themselves as Born-Again Christians, so long as it's 1)limited to self-identified people, 2)they're identifying themselves as such using "born again" in its contemporary vernacular sense, and 3)that they're a born-again Christian isn't just trivia about them. And partly it's that lately I've been focused on a conflict regarding an 89 kilobyte list. Kinda has most of my attention right now, that does. The Literate Engineer 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't think the Born-again Christian category is NPOV. Born again, as I said on votes for deletion should be based upon the primary religious text, not Existentialist and individual interpretations. It says "self-identified" as well, so it is obvious it isn't implying they actually are Born-again, it is just making their beliefs known, and I don't see a thing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, it fits in with humanities. Best regards. Эрон Кинней 11:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I see you've tagged Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif as copyvio, citing an e-mail from the copyright holder. The link to the e-mail you've provided 404's for me, so I can't read it. I've placed a query on that page asking someone to tell me who is claiming copyright on this widely-reproduced image. I'm not the original contributor, but I know many of the researchers who have worked on Chicxulub and might be able to establish whether the claimant is legitimate or not, and whether the image can be used with permission or under fair use. Please get in touch. Thanks! -- User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what happened to the link, but you can see the message on Google Cache. There's also some discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Phase II - November 28.
- As for fair use, that only applies if the article is discussing the particular image, not the subject of the image. Either way, it probably doesn't fall under Wikipedia's specific policies (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Images. Would probably need specific permission, but I figured the message pretty much said "no." Hope this helps! --02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Foofy. I've e-mailed Dr. Hildebrand to clarify whether he, or MIAC, or some other group he's associated with, is claiming copyright. If the image is copyrighted and use-restricted - a fact that I am not certain is yet established - I'll be seeking permission to use the image in an educational presentation of my own, and while I'm doing so I'll seek permission on behalf of Wikipedia. As for fair use, I'm familiar with the requirements. The image is of such historical significance and depicts such an extensive array of data that an article about this image could easily be written that is longer than the Chicxulub Crater article is presently. But that would be a back-door strategy, not entirely honorable, to my way of thinking. Thanks for your help. -- User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Hildebrand is the copyright agent for the image, and has given Wikipedia permission to use it. I've e-mailed you some of his correspondence with me separately. I'm procedurally ignorant about what to do next, however. Can we bring back the image that was deleted and change its erroneous copyright information to indicate it is used with permission, or should I upload the image anew? Is there a way to determine what articles linked to the deleted image? This is new wiki territory for me. Thanks for your help. -- User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 12:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey foof. Thanks for catching the copyright violation. I am kind of new to the Copyright Laws, cause they confuse the crap out of me. Reid 19:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- No problem! Copyright is confusing. I've been writing a "copyright for dummies" article that I hope to post here sometime soon. It just gives a quick overview of the basics, hopefully it well help some people. -- Foofy 06:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I look forward to reading it. How old exactly does an image need to be for fairuse: old to be applicable? Reid 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you following up on the license for this image? If not, we may need to delete. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello! Sorry for taking so long to reply, haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. I e-mailed the guy and he is fine with it being on Wikipedia, but he never replied to clarify the license. -- Foofy 05:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I plan on deleting this image in the next few days for lack of license. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, might as well, I can't get a hold of him. :( -- Foofy 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I finally emptied Wikipedia:Cleanup/December of 2004 listings, so December 2005 can be moved there from Wikipedia:Cleanup now, since it's getting rather large. Last time we were ready to move November out, you did a good job cleaning it up instead. If it's OK to move November, December, and January into archives, feel free to leave a note on my user talk page, and I'll do it. If you'd like to purge again instead (even just moving comments to talk pages and tagging the articles for cleanup), that would be awesome. Thanks, Beland 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The following images have been listed at WP:PUI:
- Image:Robbie Williams in concert black and white.jpg
- Image:Robbie Williams in concert.jpg
- Image:Robbie Williams singing in concert.jpg
- Image:Robbie kissing fan.jpg
Regards, Thuresson 06:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If you enjoyed your first round of purging Wikipedia:Cleanup (which was greatly appreciated) people have once again been complaining that the page is too long, and that fixed items need to be removed. If not, then that's OK; perhaps the squeaky wheel will get greased by someone else. Thanks, Beland 05:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Your multi-tier computing merge went the wrong way... I don't think anyone had noticed which direction the mergeto tags went, and there was a quiet consensus that the parent article should be the Three-tier (computing article on the talk pages. I just flipped the direction of the merge around. Georgewilliamherbert 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well now I'm just confused. To me it seems multi-tier encompasses all the terms: n-tier, three-tier, two-tier, whatever. I was in the middle of editing the article to describe it like this. I'm pretty sure the main article should be multi-tier, or at least n-tier. Also I reverted you too quickly, I hadn't read this message and was getting confused. -- Foofy 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Multi-tier logically encompasses all of them, sure. But it's more of an academic term than what's used in practice; people looking for it will expect to find three-tier by far more commonly than multi-tier. The WP standard usually is to make a parent name the more commonly used one, and then redirects for other variants that are included in the same parent article. In some science fields the parent is the most precisely correct science term, but in computing it's usually the "professionally popular" term. Which, in this case, is "Three-tier". Georgewilliamherbert 04:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- My recommendation for right now... put a non-directional merge tag on both of the articles and go ahead and modify multi-tier. If you can convince me that your changes make more sense to use that as the parent article, I'll support a merge the other way, and I'm fine with letting the two coexist for a few days for you to do that work. Georgewilliamherbert 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. I'll edit the page and put my reasons on the talk page there. Thanks. --- Foofy 04:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:HP Compaq t5000 thin client.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{ Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Sherool (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've disputed the claims on the image's talk page. No suitable alternative exists and the image is clearly attributed to a press site. The image meets the criteria listed in the Promotional tag and in Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. -- Foofy 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not a copyright newb (else you wouldn't have even see attribution or mention of a press kit). I searched for free versions before I considered images from press sites. People need to do their own search before tagging images as replaceable. -- Foofy 01:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Foofy,
I've seen your image of a three-tier application and I'd like to use it, but I'd like to modify a few things on the image. Could you please send me a vector-based version of it to keria / at / tarstud /here comes a dot/ hu ? Thanks a lot,
Please note: I like to keep all messages related to a discussion in the same place. So if I started a talk on your page, post your replies there... I'll make sure to watch the page for updates! Likewise, if you started a discussion here, I will post my replies here instead of on your page. Thanks!
You're supposed to post a proposal to both page's discussion pages and then wait a decent amount of time, like a day, rather than a few minutes. And merging a large article into a smaller one is ... bad. This isn't quite bad enough to just undo it all on you, but you've messed a bunch of stuff up here. Georgewilliamherbert 06:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I can undo it all, I was just trying to clean things up, but other things got in the way halfway through the process. Both articles are very messy, and nobody else was working on them so I was trying to clean them up. If you want me to roll everything back I can. -- Foofy 06:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I undid everything, it wasn't too much to roll back, see Talk:Multitier architecture#Cleanup and merging. -- Foofy 07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- And BTW, wasn't trying to make such a mess, just a newb biting off more than I could chew. Sorry, and thanks! :) -- Foofy 07:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
You're a bitch foofy. Stu 12:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Very good edits on Steven Curtis Chapman Page. Stu 12:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The source link provided on Image:Ballmer gates.jpg cannot be changed to the Flickr page because the source I got it from (a blog), links directly to the image URL instead of the Flickr page, Sorry. You might want to contact the original uploader and see what they can do. — Wackymacs 07:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman talk 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem at all, and no personal offense meant or taken. Best wishes! Durova 19:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Yo. Not sure what you did with your recent edits to Tutankhamun, but I think your browser accidentally broke some of the foreign language links. It looks like it was unintentional, as it only hit the links which use non-standard ascii characters. I'm guessing your browser didn't like the characters as written and converted 'em into something it could understand. Figured you'd wanna know. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Eh, don't worry about it. Not like I'm gonna flip out or anything. Just a personal preference, not a hard, iron-clad rule that MUST BE FOLLOWED or anything. Just stating what I'd like to see, if the other person is amenable to such. If not, no biggie. I'm pretty laid back. I mean, seriously, if the worst thing that happens to me in a day is that someone leaves me a comment on my page in response to a comment I left on their page, welp, I figure I'm doing pretty good. =) → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 00:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Foofy. I think you still need to place a link to the Lahore Marathon problem page on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 20 page. I don't see one there. It may be a multi-step process, like listing an AfD. Regards, David Hoag 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, it's actually listed on the
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 19 page. Now about the press release law stuff, have any links? The whole "press release" and promo materials stuff has always confused me, and it would be nice to clear things up once and for all... :)
Foofy
06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. I see the reason for my confusion: the problem is listed on the 19 November page; however, the link at the top of the Lahore Marathon page says it's on the 20 November page (at least that's the case for me; it may be because I'm in California and Wiki is set to GMT). This appears to be a Wiki coding glich over which users have no control. As for the copyright status of press releases, I remember from my journalism days that there were several court cases where issuers of press releases tried to claim a copyright when material was used in sources they didn't like. (I think one of the cases involved Mother Jones magazine.) In each instance, the court shot down the copyright claim. There is also some discussion of this issue
right here on Wiki. Best,
David Hoag
16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- However, the site with the
Lahore Marathon material has a
policy page: The site visitor agrees not to alter the presentation, reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell, distribute, publish, broadcast, circulate or commercially exploit the information in any manner without the express written consent of the Pakistan Post Office. That looks clear enough.
Tearlach
20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- We don't know that's the original source, however. That site could've built their article around the same possibly public-domain source from which the Wiki article was built. After all, post offices aren't usually in the business of running marathons; therefore, it's not unlikely some postal employee creating the webpage merely copied that text from another source.
David Hoag
21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- After much Googling I am only able to find the exact text on that post office page. The text was probably written by the post office to accompany the "collector's" stamp, I know the US post office does something similar. The policy page is pretty clear, and it's best to assume all rights are reserved until proven otherwise. Sure, it could have been stolen (however unlikely, it's a government post office after all), but that's even more reason to keep it off Wikipedia, there are policies on accurately identifying sources.
Foofy
22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. User
Ombudsman has kindly written an entirely new article about the Lahore Marathon so this seems to resolve the issue. Regards,
David Hoag
23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Best move. Your whole theory is extremely fanciful. As Foofy says, if you find something on a government website (and governments have very good legal departments) you can assume it belongs to them and that it's covered by the general terms of use for that website.
Tearlach
23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tearlach, Tearlach, Tearlach, my friend, I would suggest instead your reliance on the crack efficiency of government is what is extremely fanciful here. I think the forensic evidence indicates the webpage in question is likely not the original source. Why? How would the writer know the skies were blue? And why doesn't this crack, hyper-efficient wing of the Pakistani government and their "very good legal department" have a better copywriter if they're so on top of things? ;) I suspect the webpage was created from a paper or faxed press release and not something online. The bloke at the Pakistani postal service needed to write something up, so he rang up the marathon people, and they faxed over a press release. Crib, crib, crib, the webpage on the lovely marathon is created. Remember, there are whole worlds out there Google cannot search nor reach, particularly when it was never online to begin with. This is only conjecture on my part, but the webpage in question reads like second-hand material in my opinion. I was a journalist for a good while, and I can usually smell a crib job. In sum, there's too little evidence here to really tell what the story is one way or the other, but the chap
Ombudsman who was so kind to rewrite the whole thing was the real hero here. Best regards,
David Hoag
05:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I see it, this wasn't a debate on whether the article should be removed or not, rather a discussion on the legalities of press releases. Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Like I said, since we can't prove the source, we can't prove the license, and we definitely can't use it on Wikipedia. Clearer policy would help, do you have some sites with info on press release licensing? Thanks! :)
Foofy
05:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. See
Talk:News_release for discussion of press release licensing.
David Hoag
07:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Yep. All the speculation doesn't matter. Given that detailed history checking would probably get into
original reseach, the only thing they'd care about at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems is that it's on the Pakistan Post Office website, covered by that site's blanket assertion of copyright.
Tearlach
12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- For purposes of Wikipedia, yes, one must presume copyright unless otherwise disproven. I don't disagree with you there. However, as a practical matter, in the real world, people assert copyright all the time over material in which they have no copyright. For example, if you buy a copy of Encarta, published by Bill Gates's Microsoft, you'll find all sorts of public domain material thereon, e.g. The Bible, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, etc. etc. etc. And attached to each page is a copyright notice saying that the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, etc. is copyrighted by Microsoft. If you go to the Encarta webpage, you'll find the very same thing -- Bill Gates claiming copyright over The Bible and The Declaration of Independence. Regards, David Hoag 19:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Yep. All the speculation doesn't matter. Given that detailed history checking would probably get into
original reseach, the only thing they'd care about at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems is that it's on the Pakistan Post Office website, covered by that site's blanket assertion of copyright.
Tearlach
12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. See
Talk:News_release for discussion of press release licensing.
David Hoag
07:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I see it, this wasn't a debate on whether the article should be removed or not, rather a discussion on the legalities of press releases. Copyright is always assumed until proven otherwise. Like I said, since we can't prove the source, we can't prove the license, and we definitely can't use it on Wikipedia. Clearer policy would help, do you have some sites with info on press release licensing? Thanks! :)
Foofy
05:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tearlach, Tearlach, Tearlach, my friend, I would suggest instead your reliance on the crack efficiency of government is what is extremely fanciful here. I think the forensic evidence indicates the webpage in question is likely not the original source. Why? How would the writer know the skies were blue? And why doesn't this crack, hyper-efficient wing of the Pakistani government and their "very good legal department" have a better copywriter if they're so on top of things? ;) I suspect the webpage was created from a paper or faxed press release and not something online. The bloke at the Pakistani postal service needed to write something up, so he rang up the marathon people, and they faxed over a press release. Crib, crib, crib, the webpage on the lovely marathon is created. Remember, there are whole worlds out there Google cannot search nor reach, particularly when it was never online to begin with. This is only conjecture on my part, but the webpage in question reads like second-hand material in my opinion. I was a journalist for a good while, and I can usually smell a crib job. In sum, there's too little evidence here to really tell what the story is one way or the other, but the chap
Ombudsman who was so kind to rewrite the whole thing was the real hero here. Best regards,
David Hoag
05:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Best move. Your whole theory is extremely fanciful. As Foofy says, if you find something on a government website (and governments have very good legal departments) you can assume it belongs to them and that it's covered by the general terms of use for that website.
Tearlach
23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. User
Ombudsman has kindly written an entirely new article about the Lahore Marathon so this seems to resolve the issue. Regards,
David Hoag
23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- After much Googling I am only able to find the exact text on that post office page. The text was probably written by the post office to accompany the "collector's" stamp, I know the US post office does something similar. The policy page is pretty clear, and it's best to assume all rights are reserved until proven otherwise. Sure, it could have been stolen (however unlikely, it's a government post office after all), but that's even more reason to keep it off Wikipedia, there are policies on accurately identifying sources.
Foofy
22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- We don't know that's the original source, however. That site could've built their article around the same possibly public-domain source from which the Wiki article was built. After all, post offices aren't usually in the business of running marathons; therefore, it's not unlikely some postal employee creating the webpage merely copied that text from another source.
David Hoag
21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- However, the site with the
Lahore Marathon material has a
policy page: The site visitor agrees not to alter the presentation, reproduce, retransmit, disseminate, sell, distribute, publish, broadcast, circulate or commercially exploit the information in any manner without the express written consent of the Pakistan Post Office. That looks clear enough.
Tearlach
20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Foofy. I see the reason for my confusion: the problem is listed on the 19 November page; however, the link at the top of the Lahore Marathon page says it's on the 20 November page (at least that's the case for me; it may be because I'm in California and Wiki is set to GMT). This appears to be a Wiki coding glich over which users have no control. As for the copyright status of press releases, I remember from my journalism days that there were several court cases where issuers of press releases tried to claim a copyright when material was used in sources they didn't like. (I think one of the cases involved Mother Jones magazine.) In each instance, the court shot down the copyright claim. There is also some discussion of this issue
right here on Wiki. Best,
David Hoag
16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The important thing here is "source." Microsoft's inaccurate copyright claims are invalid because we know the true origin of the Declaration of Independence--which allows us to determine copyright. If we don't know the source of the Lahore Marathon article, well, you get the point. We have to assume press releases are copyrighted unless the source indicates otherwise.
Besides, because Microsoft and others do it doesn't necessarily make it right. To be fair, the blanket copyright labels in Encarta are probably the result of technicalities, not evilness. And in the version I have, there are no copyright labels on the few PD materials I looked for.
BTW, I'm going to drop the indentation because it's tedious and unnecessary (we're all talking about the same thing after all)! Foofy 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
In my view galleries on Summer Palace and similar fall under Wikipedia is NOT an image gallery which is a commonly used basis on which articles are deleted. That's because the numnber of images is so out of balance with the text that the text is becoming just a token entry to justify the images.
I've actually got plenty of Chinese tourist images, many better than those currently in the article, but I didn't want to start a war by replacing images or deleting them. These, often poor quality snapshots are generally there for vanity reasons, so people don't like it when they get removed. To back the poor quality claim the Summerpalace02.jpg has a white level that is around or below #808080 (that's more than two stops underexposed). That one was correctable, but only with a valid licence, and, whilst it was still in excess of requirements, I was prepared to correct it if I legally could.
Anyway, I think Summerpalace02's seven days is up now - in fact, I think it may have been up when you added the notice, I can't understand why the uploader hasn't fixed it (unless its a photo of a photo or his English understandning is very poor.
-- David Woolley 09:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Major landmarks such as this deserve a reasonably sized gallery of high quality images—the best that can be found under a free license. I agree with your points. There are a few too many images for an article this size, and the quality is pretty bad (especially compared to some of those beautiful Flickr images). I love the gallery, and I think it should be kept... it sparked a whole new interest in a place I have never heard of!
- That said, we should do what we can to make Wikipedia better than what it is—even if that involves some pruning and replacing. Let's go ahead and remove the unnecessary images and replace the poor quality/unlicensed ones. If we put our reasoning on the talk page, most will see our improvements and help back us up in the case of vanity problems. It's not like this is a subjective debate, everybody can see there are quality problems in those images. We don't have much to worry about except the vanity nerds, and they usually don't put up much of a fight. :) Foofy 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
You missed flagging the use of Summerpalace02.jpg. I've fixed that for Summe Palace -- David Woolley 09:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Just so you know, the category used to be even more POV. There was an edit conflict back in August when it was created, with one person saying that WP:NPOV doesn't apply because it's "true Christianity". Good times, good times. The Literate Engineer 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well hopefully I'm not alone in thinking it's a bit silly. I showed it to a few specific friends, and they all thought it was rather biased. It's funny because they're all conservative Christians who avoid Wikipedia for "liberal anti-religion bias." :P So I can't be too far off with the CfD.
- Besides, worse that can happen is the vote fails and I get flamed to death. :) Foofy 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Vote-failure and a flaming? Join the club. About a week ago I got flamed for "hating baseball" when I nominated the list of baseball jargon for deletion. The Literate Engineer 07:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a lot of list cruft and one-line articles out there, and people get pretty defensive about deleting them but won't lift a finger to expand or enhance the article. There's just this general "deleting is bad and if you wan't to delete you have a vendetta" vibe or something. I think pruning is good, if the stuff is really important a more evolved version will appear soon enough. Foofy 07:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, I haven't. Partly it's that I don't think there's really anything wrong with a category of people who identify themselves as Born-Again Christians, so long as it's 1)limited to self-identified people, 2)they're identifying themselves as such using "born again" in its contemporary vernacular sense, and 3)that they're a born-again Christian isn't just trivia about them. And partly it's that lately I've been focused on a conflict regarding an 89 kilobyte list. Kinda has most of my attention right now, that does. The Literate Engineer 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't think the Born-again Christian category is NPOV. Born again, as I said on votes for deletion should be based upon the primary religious text, not Existentialist and individual interpretations. It says "self-identified" as well, so it is obvious it isn't implying they actually are Born-again, it is just making their beliefs known, and I don't see a thing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, it fits in with humanities. Best regards. Эрон Кинней 11:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I see you've tagged Image:Chicxulub crater gravity map.gif as copyvio, citing an e-mail from the copyright holder. The link to the e-mail you've provided 404's for me, so I can't read it. I've placed a query on that page asking someone to tell me who is claiming copyright on this widely-reproduced image. I'm not the original contributor, but I know many of the researchers who have worked on Chicxulub and might be able to establish whether the claimant is legitimate or not, and whether the image can be used with permission or under fair use. Please get in touch. Thanks! -- User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what happened to the link, but you can see the message on Google Cache. There's also some discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Phase II - November 28.
- As for fair use, that only applies if the article is discussing the particular image, not the subject of the image. Either way, it probably doesn't fall under Wikipedia's specific policies (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Images. Would probably need specific permission, but I figured the message pretty much said "no." Hope this helps! --02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Foofy. I've e-mailed Dr. Hildebrand to clarify whether he, or MIAC, or some other group he's associated with, is claiming copyright. If the image is copyrighted and use-restricted - a fact that I am not certain is yet established - I'll be seeking permission to use the image in an educational presentation of my own, and while I'm doing so I'll seek permission on behalf of Wikipedia. As for fair use, I'm familiar with the requirements. The image is of such historical significance and depicts such an extensive array of data that an article about this image could easily be written that is longer than the Chicxulub Crater article is presently. But that would be a back-door strategy, not entirely honorable, to my way of thinking. Thanks for your help. -- User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Hildebrand is the copyright agent for the image, and has given Wikipedia permission to use it. I've e-mailed you some of his correspondence with me separately. I'm procedurally ignorant about what to do next, however. Can we bring back the image that was deleted and change its erroneous copyright information to indicate it is used with permission, or should I upload the image anew? Is there a way to determine what articles linked to the deleted image? This is new wiki territory for me. Thanks for your help. -- User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 12:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey foof. Thanks for catching the copyright violation. I am kind of new to the Copyright Laws, cause they confuse the crap out of me. Reid 19:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- No problem! Copyright is confusing. I've been writing a "copyright for dummies" article that I hope to post here sometime soon. It just gives a quick overview of the basics, hopefully it well help some people. -- Foofy 06:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I look forward to reading it. How old exactly does an image need to be for fairuse: old to be applicable? Reid 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you following up on the license for this image? If not, we may need to delete. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello! Sorry for taking so long to reply, haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. I e-mailed the guy and he is fine with it being on Wikipedia, but he never replied to clarify the license. -- Foofy 05:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I plan on deleting this image in the next few days for lack of license. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, might as well, I can't get a hold of him. :( -- Foofy 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I finally emptied Wikipedia:Cleanup/December of 2004 listings, so December 2005 can be moved there from Wikipedia:Cleanup now, since it's getting rather large. Last time we were ready to move November out, you did a good job cleaning it up instead. If it's OK to move November, December, and January into archives, feel free to leave a note on my user talk page, and I'll do it. If you'd like to purge again instead (even just moving comments to talk pages and tagging the articles for cleanup), that would be awesome. Thanks, Beland 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The following images have been listed at WP:PUI:
- Image:Robbie Williams in concert black and white.jpg
- Image:Robbie Williams in concert.jpg
- Image:Robbie Williams singing in concert.jpg
- Image:Robbie kissing fan.jpg
Regards, Thuresson 06:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If you enjoyed your first round of purging Wikipedia:Cleanup (which was greatly appreciated) people have once again been complaining that the page is too long, and that fixed items need to be removed. If not, then that's OK; perhaps the squeaky wheel will get greased by someone else. Thanks, Beland 05:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Your multi-tier computing merge went the wrong way... I don't think anyone had noticed which direction the mergeto tags went, and there was a quiet consensus that the parent article should be the Three-tier (computing article on the talk pages. I just flipped the direction of the merge around. Georgewilliamherbert 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well now I'm just confused. To me it seems multi-tier encompasses all the terms: n-tier, three-tier, two-tier, whatever. I was in the middle of editing the article to describe it like this. I'm pretty sure the main article should be multi-tier, or at least n-tier. Also I reverted you too quickly, I hadn't read this message and was getting confused. -- Foofy 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Multi-tier logically encompasses all of them, sure. But it's more of an academic term than what's used in practice; people looking for it will expect to find three-tier by far more commonly than multi-tier. The WP standard usually is to make a parent name the more commonly used one, and then redirects for other variants that are included in the same parent article. In some science fields the parent is the most precisely correct science term, but in computing it's usually the "professionally popular" term. Which, in this case, is "Three-tier". Georgewilliamherbert 04:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- My recommendation for right now... put a non-directional merge tag on both of the articles and go ahead and modify multi-tier. If you can convince me that your changes make more sense to use that as the parent article, I'll support a merge the other way, and I'm fine with letting the two coexist for a few days for you to do that work. Georgewilliamherbert 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. I'll edit the page and put my reasons on the talk page there. Thanks. --- Foofy 04:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:HP Compaq t5000 thin client.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{ Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Sherool (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've disputed the claims on the image's talk page. No suitable alternative exists and the image is clearly attributed to a press site. The image meets the criteria listed in the Promotional tag and in Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. -- Foofy 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not a copyright newb (else you wouldn't have even see attribution or mention of a press kit). I searched for free versions before I considered images from press sites. People need to do their own search before tagging images as replaceable. -- Foofy 01:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Foofy,
I've seen your image of a three-tier application and I'd like to use it, but I'd like to modify a few things on the image. Could you please send me a vector-based version of it to keria / at / tarstud /here comes a dot/ hu ? Thanks a lot,