Hey, just a couple things I want to ask. First, I'm tryign to learn how to do these, so if I make any mistakes (I think i messed something up in the update i did earlier this morning), just let me know. My main question is, if I create two articles, both following the guidelines of a DYK article, and they have the same "fact", could I combine the two into one DYK article? I haven't seen that so I don't know itf that's acceptable, though I guess I don't see why it wouldn't be. Keep up the good work at DYK, btw.-- Wizardman 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just combined them if that's okay :)-- Wizardman 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The hook seems fine to me. Look out tomorrow though when I'm planning on writing an article on an Irish player who had two brothers, three cousins and a son who all played for Ireland! Andrew nixon 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The hook looks great. I hope it gets to the main page! =) Thanks for nominating it. LaNicoya •TALK• 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Howdy. Thanks for the heads up on the non-free status of the photos I took ( here and here) of the Calder sculpture. However, if you read further down US Copyright Act in section D, the copyright is only valid for the life of the author. Does the copyright then transfer to his estate? I can't find any other pictures of Calder works on WP or Commons that use this tag. Thoughts? Thanks! pinotgris 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Glad you are featuring Jean Balukas as the lead dyk but I have one quibble with the editing of the entry (is it necessary that it be shortened?) the edited entry has far less impact I think because it loses the most important part: she is the only player to win seven U.S. Opens, period. The fact that the seven wins were consecutive makes it even more impressive but being consecutive is secondary. Reading the current entry, someone could easily believe that other players won more U.S. Opens, just not consecutively. If DYKs were even longer I would have loved to mention that her streak started at 13 years of age.-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination for housetrucker on Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 7. As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, what is the next process? cheers :-) Mombas 08:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
last year you deleted this image. The reasons given in the deletion request were OR, AB. Would you be so kind to point me a page where I could decipher these cryptic abbreviations or simply tell me what they stand for? :) There is an identical image on the Portuguese Wikipedia pointing the English one as a source, but now this source is gone... I need to know what to do with our image :). Thanks for your help, PatríciaR discussão 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The image was uploaded by Andreas Kaufmann. I merely recompressed it, as can be seen from the file history. It would make more sense for you to talk to him about it. -- Zundark 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your comments and the others who pitched in. I've learnt a lot. Do you think it is clean enough to remove the tag now? Shodobe 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Howcheng. If my memory isn't tricking me, the image Image:IndianaTempleDoom.jpg is a reupload of the recently deleted image Image:Indiana Jones 1.jpg. Can you check that?
Even if they're not the same Image:IndianaTempleDoom.jpg is wrongly tagged as a screenshot (Indiana Jones movies don't use an odd screen proportion of 485 × 739 and the characters don't face the camera). It's a copyrighted image that Lucasfilm Ltd. licenses for its clients and partners, like imdb, probably under written permission. That is, even if these images are not the same, they engage in the same error. Do you believe the later could be speedy deleted so? Thanks, -- Abu badali ( talk) 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Howard,
I just wanted to let you know I have finally promoted Ygnacio to GA
and congratulate you on your efforts, not to mention to thank you for exhibiting a superb and exemplary committment to editing Wikipedia and taking part in the GA process as nominator and author. It has been a real pleasure to see all my peskiness being handled so well.
Congratulations again and good luck with your further nominations, which I am looking forward to!
PrinceGloria 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You and the number of articles you have successfully submitted to DYK has been noted here because you have been discovered as one of the twenty-five highest DYK article contributors. If you feel compelled to continue to update your number of DYKs on this list, and therefore the list itself, then it would be very helpful and help make sure that the list is as up-to-date as possible. If you, indeed, do not wish to be present on this list, then please notify me, the creator. Regards, —A • D Torque 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about DYK and Pisonia brunoniana. Am chuffed. Thanks for your great work with the DYK. Kahuroa 12:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for using my factoid on the DYK section - it made my week! Have a good one. -- Yahoo!Sirius 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Since you adjusted the nom, I give you credit for it. Thank you. Smee 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I c-uploaded both, because the frame version will still be on the MainPage, though it hasn't been protected at Commons. The redirect still works (though it hides the c-uploaded info on the frame).-- Pharos 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created a warning template specific to {{ GFDL presumed}} images - {{ GFDL presumed warning}} - that can be used when tagging them with no source/no license. Would it be possible for you to change the "no source" and "no license" buttons of your script so that they will search the text for "{{GFDL presumed" and "{{GFDL-presumed", and if either string is found, use {{ GFDL presumed warning}} instead of {{ image source}}? Thanks. -- BigDT 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the consensus is pretty much, "You're screwed." There's not much we can do for this situation. You can keep trying different passwords for your Bababoum account, but if that doesn't work, you'll have to create a new account and start editing from there. If you do the latter, you may want to make redirects at User:Bababoum and User talk:Bababoum to your new account and add an explanation of what happened. Sorry. howcheng { chat} 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks anyway. Is there no way the password of the account can be changed? 82.29.19.104 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. -- Poeticbent talk 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I appreciate very much your contribution. Thanks. Happy wikiEditing! CeeGee 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just c-uploaded Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg, but I'm rather concerned about its copyright status. It has been labeled PD-ineligible, without a clear justification. The only discussion of it copyright (the issue was not raised at its FP nomination) appears to employ flawed reasoning (we do not consider Livermore images PD). I suggest we skip this image over until such issues can be fully discussed.-- Pharos 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for response on my copyright question. I have edited the image to reflect {{ PD-self}}. I simply wanted to be directed as to how a user logs an image's copyright so that it is not removed and would like to make sure that by adding {{ PD-self}} to the image it will not be removed. You're assistance is much appreciated. Danread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danread ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
In case you don't check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles regularly, the car you wanted identifying is almost certainly a 1931 Chevrolet Independence AE 4-door sedan. :) HTH, Lewis Collard! ( natter) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to give source if an image is confirmed PD-art? I found a black-white reproduction of one image that confirms it is a 17th century piece, do I need to find a color version if we have a color or is it enough to mention author and details, without a hyperlink to a source?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
HI. What about my History of Exploration in Tibet article for a DYK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Atar Volant has been redirected to SNECMA Atar Volant, could you add the DYK tag to the redirected page. Thanx, STTW (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, You deleted this entry back in March 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_dominguez_leiva I don't find your reasons convincing, you state: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" Antonio Dominguez is the author of more than twenty books in French and Spanish. He currently resides in London, hence the entry in English. Please reconsider. Thanks.
I got a notice that this article made it, but I don't see it on the DYK page. Am I in the right place? Wrad 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, even better! Thanks. Wrad 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, and thanks especially for your hard work maintaining DYK. -- Samir 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng,
As per your suggestions in my talk page, I have responded to the deletion notice of Image:Garudi_gombe.jpg in its talk page here.
By the way, I have also moved the article Karanji lake to Karanji Lake.
Thanks for your suggestions -- Amarrg 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng! This image is scheduled as POTD for 26th May, but I've just nominated it for delisting. Is there any chance you could shuffle it for one of the other images so that the nomination can run its course? I'm reasonably confident that there'll be a consensus to delist, in which case it would be better if it didn't make an appearance on the main page this week, IMO. It's already had its day of fame back in 2005, so that doesn't seem unfair. -- YFB ¿ 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you want me to prove that they came from the trailer? I could send you the trailer if you want... By the way, I typically run trailers in slow motion when I do screenshots in order to avoid text, etc. -- PhantomS 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the nom in May 16 for Scientology Task Force, nom by me, created by Like.liberation, and issues addressed and fixed up by ClaudeReigns. What do you think of it for a future DYK at this point? Smee 06:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
Hello, regarding your message on my talk and template Template:POTD/2007-06-15 ; I find it consistent and not going to details text involve key points. Maybe only "dictator" could be a bit wrong as he usually referred as "authoritarian president" or "authoritarian head of state", but as article text also uses and "dictator" it would be no drama if current definition be used. Cheers, M.K. 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. First, I want to apologize for the inconvenience of going through every one of the images I have uploaded without a source. It was an involuntary mistake. I just did not know that also with them, I have to use references. I will work on correcting the ones I have used in the articles written by me, but I do not mind if some others are deleted. I have been an excellent contributor to the wikipedia and work hard on my articles, to let a loose end. Sadly, my work has been brought to attention only due to this source image issue. I have taken myself most of the images I have used in historical articles from material in the NY public library, they can be found in some books and most of them come from private collections. However, there are not references about the photographers, probably because they are more than a hundred years old. I am going to add a source were they can be verified. In the articles about painters, I have tried to upload the images to the Wikimedia Commons. It is with the movie poster images that I am lost. I can specify the source, but I do not know what kind of explanation about why is permitted under the fair use policy other than being a low-resolution, smaller version of a poster used to illustrate the movie article. Can you give me a hint?. Thanks Miguelemejia 9:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, to upload a non-free cover of a magazine it must meet the following criteria:
In order for the image to be used there must be mention of SI in the article. In addition, the image should appear next to the mention, that is why the article states that Charles Barkley made his first appearance on the magazine, per fair-use rationale. Other Fair-Use rationale includes:
The fair use rationale used here is similar to MJ's free-use rationale. Please inform if you feel otherwise. Zodiiak Dial Z 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, this is just a friendly warning. I noticed that you tagged some images I'd transferred to the Commons as missing sources and also done so on their versions in Wikipedia. I managed to transfer those to the Commons whilst on auto-pilot so they should definitely be challenged there. My bad.
However, I got into a whole heap of trouble on Wikipedia the other day when I'd tagged 100 or so PD-art images with the {{ nosource}} template and caused an almighty row. Personally, I'm with you, all images, PD or not, should have source information - as its about verification of the authenticity of the image even if copyright is 99.9% certain due to age - but this wasn't the view of the rest of the community at the time. As you can read at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive244#Sources for Mona Lisa?, I got quite a hammering. Hopefully you may have a more friendly reception than I did....but don't be surprised if you meant with indignance. Madmedea 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just delete the pics, I'm aware of how blatant copyright paranoia has gotten around here, no need to waste anyone's time nominating them all and notifying me. I learned this a couple of weeks when all the pics in Lawrence Taylor were nommed and my arguments failed to save them. Pardon me if I didn't nom them all myself. Quadzilla99 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Howcheng. There are two magazine covers that I nominated for deletion a while back but weren't deleted by closing admin Johntex, and I plan to send them to Deletion review. I would like your opinion on either is this a good idea. (Actually it were 3 magazine cover images that he decided to keep, but one of them was speedy-deleted as a copyvio right after his ifd closing)
As suggested in WP:DRV, I've firstly contacted the admin in this talk and, after reviewing his decision, he said he still believe the images should be kept, and suggested a Deletion Review process.
Admin Johntex usually has a very permissive view on usage of unfree content, as evidenced by his comments on this ifd debate about a magazine cover he uploaded shortly before his brief interest on ifd closing that led to the keeping og that two (actually 3) magazine covers.
So, if you had the time, could you take a look at the discussion in this talk and say if you believe that a deletion review would be in place?
Best regards, -- Abu badali ( talk) 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I believe someone has compromised your screen name, take a look at the talk page for this article.-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} tag available and applying it to my upload. I still have not been able to find that tag in the list of tags so I went ahead and added to the list so others like me might have a chance at finding it. -- Dbiel 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to delete the image of Frank Norris that I uploaded. I've been waiting for someone to find a better one! -- MosheA 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What determines a featured picture? It seems you're the only one who can do that, which to me is against the community philosophy of Wikipedia. Maiku 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you listed some images on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The uploader I assume (an IP) of this section has changed the license tags. Assume good faith on this one? Garion96 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Howcheng. I didn't fully understood why you withdrew your nomination for deletion of this magazine cover. The only mention in the article to this cover image is the phrase "His singular celebrity status as the Sixers franchise player led to his first appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated" followed a reference pointing to the player's nba bio where the magazine (neither it's cover) is not mentioned at all.
What exactly made you change your mind in regards to the concerns you original posted on the nomination ("Does not increase the user's understanding in a way that words alone cannot...")?
I'm asking that because I plan to nominate the image for deletion, but you previous nomination and withdrawn sound to me as a clue that I'm probably missing something.
Thanks, -- Abu badali ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hair chr m 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there is no consensus to delete this image (as well as the following WWII images), it also has a fair use rationale.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree, this is a highly notable image that increases the readers understanding of the related articles. Therefore: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - N 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand why you deleted the above image. There was no clear consensus to delete it.
I assume you put it under this category:
The photo in southern Africa though is quite iconic. Indeed Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world and has come to be an emblem of Zimbabwe's problems. I am not go to quote all the different newspapers, TV channels, magazines and Internet sites that showed it - that is on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 9 page. As someone who follows African news I would say that this image was quite iconic. The showing of the photos caused an international uproar. IMHO to make a decision on this photo one needs to research the topic that the photo illustrates. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng,
As requested, the OTRS ticket number I received after having permission granted for our use of the "donhertzfeldt.jpg" image is: #2007051710015191
PLEASE NOTE that this is NOT for the Wireimage photo that you removed. I did not upload the Wireimage photo. This is for the jpeg of the same name that had previously been in the Don Hertzfeldt bio (Don at his art desk) and had been nominated for deletion. Please restore this image.
Thanks! Sleepyjuly 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg- the IFD nomination was unanimous in favor of keeping it, and it was explained (at great length) why this image is necessary. Raul654 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you deleted this image, would you properly close the discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 22? Not only is it still receiving comments, but I can't request a DRV on it until the discussion is closed. :) Thanks. - N 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please show me where is this rule written?
"Regardless of the importance of the scene, this screenshot does not expand the reader's understanding in a way that words cannot; the text already adequately describes the scene."
Or is this your POV? Because mine is strongly against your statement an has the same value.
Please show the rule that states these words, please. MachocariocaMachocarioca
Boink! Why was the image deleted? -- Cat chi? 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You edited my article on Wc3Banlist proposing that it doesn't fit the speedy delete specifications. Can you tell me what is to happen from this point? Is my article safe from deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.137.52 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
Can you please block User:84.241.150.26 and User:Blowland? They have no constructive edits whatsoever, and keep on vandalising my userpage. Can you please, have this activeties stopped by banning 'em? My page is being vandalised on a near daily base now! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being so polite with me in your edit summaries. I am curious though, why retain the deletion notices once the discussion has been archived? How long will these deletion notices stay in place? Smee 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
Hi,
On the basis of the DRV discussion, I'm restoring the image. I do this because I believe the legal issues remain unclear (and most commenters want to discuss the issue more); absent intervention from WP:OFFICE, this means that further discussion is warranted and helpful to the understanding of all. The image should be relisted at IfD: I think you are best able to write the proper nomination.
FWIW, donning my lawyer's hat for a moment, I think your argument regarding the image's significance is a good one -- without any text supporting it in the article, the image is merely decorative. However, I think the argument regarding "improper enrichment through the disregard of commercial rights" is a red-herring. Historical photographs, even when still under copyright, are routinely used in critical analysis when the conditions of fair-use are met: as others observed, that is the purpose of the fair use doctrine. The question is whether the conditions of fair use are met. At present, I think they are not, but the article might be edited to include analysis of the photograph by its supporters. Whether that is appropriate for WP to do is an issue for further discussion also, unless ordered from on high. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
So is the most recent version strong enough? I'd have thought it was almost too strong, but then I'm not engaged in policing the policy. Tony 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This FP is no longer used in the tesseract article. There are several "improved" versions by the same author that are now used in that article instead. Perhaps User:JasonHise should be contacted about nominating one of the improved versions to replace this FP, before we feature this on the MainPage? Thanks.-- Pharos 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You removed two galleries from this article citing WP:NFCC. Then someone put it back. I just have a query - one or two of them appear to be public domain (see User:Stonedead's uploads), although some might be dubious (see WP:HD#Bond Girls). Is it still grounds to remove the galleries because most of the images are fair use? x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, as a fellow contributor to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images I was wondering if you'd take the time to comment on the proposal I've made on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Proposal for an addition to the page introduction. Thanks. Madmedea 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Howcheng, I humbly thank you for selecting this article for DYK, and also for letting me know. Badagnani 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I noticed that the image of Arvo Pärt, was deleted ( Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_30). I missed the I&MfD, so I might be speaking up too late, but I think that the Image:JD_Salinger.jpg precedent could apply to Pärt. Searching on "Arvo Pärt reclusive" shows that he, like Gorecki, is famously reclusive--perhaps not to the same extent as Salinger, but certainly orders of magnitudes more than most composers. Thanks for considering. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have a picture I would like to nominate for "picture of the day" in July 2007. I have two questions, A) Am I allowed to put on on, since I am not an admin, and B) If not could you do it?
God Bless,
Politics rule 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't download it. As I said in the image file, I copied it from the archives: I went to the park and copied it from the original. The park has 10s of 1,000s of documents that are not online. Hal Jespersen 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you, pleace tell me who decides that the picture is no longer meets the standarts to be a featured picture and becomes a Former Featured Picture.Thanks.-- Mbz1 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Thanks for telling me that Howcheng; as I'm sure you have now been able to guess, my area of expertise is not exactly images, and I am now much ore cautious about uploading them. It appears, however, that my image qualifies the policies, but I have imply uploaded it on the wrong project. I thought of it, but opted instead to upload it here to be safe. However, I hope to be able to use the tag you mentioned when I can. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify why you feel that this image may be in violation of Fair Use policy guidelines. I believe that an adequate Fair use rationale was given, and that it is in compliance with all "non-free" guidelines. If you have any specific concerns, I would be happy to address. -- MChew 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I have one question, though. What makes you think that the picture of Pen-Ek Ratanaruang is more appropriate on Main Page than that of the only extant Sassanid fortress? -- Ghirla -трёп- 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I thought that it only needed to be featured image in the Wikimedia Commons. I'm sorry again. João Felipe C.S 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the pictures (DONT HAVE TO) be there. But it would let the reader know what they are reading about. For example:
"In Madonna's 1998 hit, Ray of Light, The Twin Towers where shown, breifely, 4 times in the Koyaanisqatsi inspired music video, two from street level and two aerial dusk shots."
I'm sure the reader would like to see a picture of that. It would be much more intresting to see images that go along with the subject they are reading.
Now if I'm allowed to put the pics up (which I still havent gotten a firm YES or NO awnser) I wouldnt clutter up the page, just show 3 or 4 per sighting, for example TV, Music Videos, Cartoons, and those couple of images would only be the most prominent one. Not every sighting would have a picture.
The pictures, yes, would decorate the page, but also show the reader the sighting, while they read about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pag293 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
"Do you see a link to a page that has this image? No? Then there's STILL NO SOURCE" There is no need to yell. Nor is there a need for all images to have a link. It clearly specifies its source, and the license is acceptable. Perhaps you should check your contributions to make sure you didn't mis-tag any other images in addition to this one? In any case, yelling and sarcasm will not help build an encyclopedia, nor will deleting valid images. Bushytails 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, quickimgdelete is broke for me. I click on an item and it opens up the tabs as needed but just leaves it at the edit screens and doesn't do anything. I thought it might have been a recent change to my monobook so I undid that but still the same thing. I've tried IFD, ORFUD and redundant and all the same thing. I'm hoping it's just me but I dunno what else to do. Any ideas? MECU≈ talk 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You removed two images from Culture in North Omaha, Nebraska under the premise of #8. The usage of those images in this article does not meet the criteria for deletion because they both significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article. Please note that this article is not a list, gallery, or navigational element. Please consider restoring the images. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When are you going to knock off the Church of Scientology bashing on the DYK? There are about 270 articles related to Scientology on Wikipedia out of how many total articles? How come you (as in YOU, Howcheng) are giving such undue weight to Scientology-bashing. Smee I understand because I understand her POV-pushing. What is YOUR story? -- Justanother 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep this discussion at AN/I please. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You voiced an opinion on this image at IFD, but maybe were not fully aware of the situation. The image was orphaned by me, as I took it down thinking it might be copyvio (as my comment directly prior to your's describes). I went ahead and de-oophaned the image, as that seems to have created some confusion. The question is really whether this image is copyvio, or perhaps useable as fair use. Kind of confusing, which suggests maybe I should have just left it on the page until this is sorted out. Just wanted to let you know so you are not voting on an incorrect assumption. thanks. — Gaff ταλκ 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a small token of appreciation.
No worries, people. Happy editing! howcheng { chat} 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Img fine with administrators previously. Rationale given. Please would you look into the reason for that please. Many thanks for your attention to this matter Londo06 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Get an email stating that they are willing to do this and forward it to the people at OTRS (see that page for instructions). Regards, howcheng { chat} 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Will look to do that shortly. Londo06 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in regards to your recent self-nominations at T:TDYK, please be sure to read the rules at Wikipedia:Did you know before you nominate any more articles. In short, many of your nominations do not meet the minimum expansion requirements and it would save us a lot of time if you did not submit those that do not qualify, such as Thomasites and Lorenzo Ruiz. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. please see this page. Thank you-- OsamaK 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination on Frederick Rotimi Williams. Alexlovesme (UTC)
The link shows that the page is linked to an NPS site link. View North Carolina State Capitol for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staplegunther ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)).
North Carolina State Capitol is clearly on a U.S. govenrment page. It is sourced, linked, and verified. If you want to be a picture Nazi go for it, but give us users some credit for trying. -staplegunther
Careful, Howcheng! Conquest of Hispania refers to the Roman Republic's conquest of Spain, not the invasion of the Visigothic Kingdom under Justinian's Byzantine Empire 500 years later! Slac speak up! 02:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Yomangani talk 12:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Smee 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Carabinieri 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Smee 04:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I will not be able to protect the TFA or POTD images on June 18 (they haven't been chosen yet). Just thought I would notify you on the odd chance this isn't taken care of by someone else. Thanks.-- Pharos 06:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. So did the non-bashing Scientology article not find its way to the front page? User:Slightlyright put a lot of effort into that article. -- Justanother 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been continuing to take pics with my point and shoot digital. I am wondering if any of the first 11 photos at User:TonyTheTiger#Selected_Photo_Contributions are worthy. I am not sure which ones would have the best shot, but I am leaning toward the Image:20070513 Pumping Station.JPG, Image:20070601 Victory Monument (2).JPG and Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG. Which do you think are my best? Maybe some day I will get a real camera. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. -- Poeticbent talk 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Adding text "Deletionist Ahoy" to be used in later bot collection of usernames for re-education after Jimbo's lawsuit paranoia and re-usability obsession have subsided and Wikipedia can go back to being a decently illustrated compendium. -- JDG 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng, the real breach of civility is your coming to my user page and shouting "Cease and Desist!" as if you're some kind of police storm trooper, and also in censoring my opinion by reverting your Talk page. If there was anything uncivil in my edit it was the use of the word paranoia in connection with Jimbo Wales, but even that is very light and I doubt the man himself would be offended at all, and it was not directed at you. To refer to you as a Deletionist is not uncivil, as it is accurate and is a descriptive term in growing use among many long-time respected editors (among whom I am not too modest to include myself, from circa November `02). To mark you for re-education is no more insulting than your telling scores of users that they have not understood Wikipedia policy on use of images. I request that you restore my edit and that you resolve to squarely face the consequences of your many deletions instead of attempting to hush it up through threats and reversions. JDG 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings again. I was processing rfu images, and I'm stumped regarding Image:Jp01.jpg. Note that it's used in two different articles, for two different purposes, and the image talk page is heated. Could you process this one for me? Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Stefan
14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Yeah, I was wondering how we keep track of that. Where should the info be retained? On the T:DYK/N page? Mango juice talk 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm tired of waiting for feedback on a FP? proposal and figured I'd take the mountain to Mohammed. I get the impression that people are happy to let me ride roughshod over the criteria and I've already made several bold changes there, more on a "silence equals consent" basis than anything else. However I'm a little less confident about merging these three criteria simply because I may be overlooking something. I've spent a good deal of time raking over existing image use policy for reasons to keep these separate and can't find any. Would you do me a favour and let me know what you think? It always seemed crazy to me that the criteria need ever cover more than six or seven key areas, so this merge would be more-or-less job done. Thanks. mikaul talk 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I have downplayed many words and sentences. Please see if its ok and nominate to DYK. Dineshkannambadi 23:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So what should the proper tag with this (if it is not deleted)? I am not going to contest if image should be deleted by more experienced wikipedians. What I want is to just improve the article on F. Sionil Jose. This is all "labyrinthine" to me, these images incorporation to articles. Dragonbite 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks, I have added the source, hope it is ok now. The photo was taken by me a few years ago by the way, and I have seen it now on Pucci's myspace page, which is not private.
Thom.
Thank you for using Charles Netter at DYK.
Could the image, now orphaned, be used in the Mikveh Israel article? The stamp commemorates the centennial of the Mikveh Israel, and using it there will satisfy the rule of not using stamps to illustrate the subject depicted on the stamp.
-- Derwig 07:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi HowCheng! Thanks again and again for your contribution. Happy DYKeditibng! CeeGee 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS! Cholga is a SUPERSTAR ¡Talk2Cholga! Sexy Contribs 01:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that "replceable fair use" of quickimgdelete.js uses rfu2, the edit summary ("will be deleted in seven days") is a bit out of date. Could you change it? hbdragon88 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I closed the IFD on Image:Political Shirley Temple.jpg as a keep, pending a response from NASA about the actual source of the image. This is the response I got:
“ | Though this photo was posted years ago, I am fairly certain that it was not taken by anyone at this site, therefore your suspicion may be a good one. The photo was given to our personnel by Ms. Black during our Female Frontiers project for use on our website. I do not have any further information on its source.
Sorry, (name redacted) |
” |
So there are several annoying implications here and it's a road that I really don't want to go down. We've been taking it as gospel that anything on a NASA site that doesn't say otherwise is PD. I don't really like going down the road where this is going to lead.
At any rate, as far as this goes, since it is most certainly not PD, the question is whether we can use it as fair use. We now have an actual source for it so that isn't an issue. My inclination is to say no, since it is purely decorative. But I think it ought to be re-IFD'd since there is new information that has come to light. Any thoughts? -- BigDT 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to drop a note on a deletion of yours that I undid so that my actions do not come across in any way as a wheel war. Two admins, User:Quadell and I, had previously reviewed the image and found it to be fair use. If you feel that my actions are errant, I am more than happy to discuss this further. Anyhow, cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're there, can you post the next update, which is rather overdue? It has six articles, but the On this Day today and tomorrow are both short, so it looks okay. Rigadoun (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the second time I've seen you incorrectly state what freedom of panorama is in a deletion discussion, so I am going to copy verbatim my response to you from here: "Actually you are incorrect. FOP allows taking derivative pictures of copyrighted works. Please see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama (which I must admit I co-wrote with an admin from Commons). There is no requirement it be only a small portion of the work. What you are thinking of is called "de minimis" use of the copyrighted work. See de minimis. However in this case, Australian FOP clearly doesn't apply." I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm merely trying to explain to you a concept which is foreign to most people in the United States. - N 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way I can undelete that image? It is needed for an article. Tzadik 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Anschlusstears.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Raven4x4x
09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I hereby award you this purple star for withstanding personal attacks and speculative accusations levied at you on IFD. You are also commended for keeping your cool -- most of the time. :-)
–
Quadell (
talk) (
random)
19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
(←) I understand your point, but these really are primary sources. If they were PD, Wikisource would be the place to put them, but they're not, so that's out. I'm sure you know that primary sources don't belong here. howcheng { chat} 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Howcheng. I didn't mean for this award to send more fire your way. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the best response is no response at all. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification about POTD selection. I'll look into the caption. -- MattWright ( talk) 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
I hereby award you the The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your work on defending the correct use of the fair use policy Bleh999 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
Interview much? How predictable, the image-editors awarding themsleves, again. Sorry, don't mean to spoil the fun (at my expense?), again. El_C 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete the picture of Jack Sarfatti on his web page?
I am confused by your comment. :-) User:SamuelJohnson714
Did Sarfatti object to Wiki using those images of him? SamuelJohnson714 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I re-forwarded the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is that correct? Thanks, SosoMK 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see:
Please see updated discussion pages at those images pertaining to La Femme Nikita (TV series): previous decision concerning the use of all those DVD covers from the packages of the DVD box sets copyrighted by Warner Bros. needs to be revisited, in view of material posted more recently in the discussion pages and the notices at User talk:Tardis pertaining to the images (cover art, screen captures from copyrighted merchandise). Fair use rationales still under dispute for each of those images (all copyright-protected cover art). See 28 June 2007 and scroll to Article listing as well. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For an example of all the discussion pages re: those DVD cover art images and screen captures made from the DVD and/or on-air broadcast television episode programs (contained in them), see Image talk:NikitaS1DVD.jpg. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng, have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Change format of page listings? There is support for a new sub page system (akin to IFD or WP:Copyright problems). Would you be able to update your JavaScript to start this, perhaps to begin at 0:00 UTC (of whatever day)? Thank you very much; your JavaScript is much appreciated. -- Iamunknown 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Yomar has uploaded the image again... Image:US Army OF11.gif and reinserted it in the articles: Ranks of the People's Liberation Army & General of the Armies. I put a {db-repost} tag on the image. -- noclador 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Italian Army Ranks. this is definitely not original research. I was a member of the Italian Armed Forces for 4 years and have never seen/heard of the rank he is pushing into the article. It is a complete fabrication and I every major editor to the Italian Army articles (me, User:Flanker, user:Empar) is angered by this behaviour. -- noclador 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Another one: User:Iormar and Image:US Army OF 11.gif -- noclador 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Yomar, User:Iormar and User:Yormar are all suspected socketpups of the worst wikipedia vandal Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. -- noclador 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to update the DYK again? I posted things to Next Update a few hours ago, hoping someone would notice, but we're up to 8 hours now. Rigadoun (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I did a fair use reduce on this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FFI-2.png can you delete the old revision Bleh999 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you also worked on WP:PUI. Could you perhaps have a look at the upload's of user User:LukaP I am half in mind of deleting (almost) all his pictures. :) But before (if) I do that I thought I'd check with someone else. Examples are Image:T2-3.jpg, first tagged as fair use, after I tagged it as replaceble it changed to Public Domain, a lot of images I listed on WP:PUI (June 30) and a bunch more in his contributions. See also his talk page and archive which is full of image warnings. Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the license for this POTD. The sources no longer work. Are you active with POTD? If so, can you advise on what to do here? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a new article to be considered for DYK about a journalist Selvarajah Rajivarnam. Thanks Taprobanus 14:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite Abu Badali's dismissal of it, the image itself is indeed notable (iconic even) in Israel. I am not saying it should be undeleted just yet though, but could you tell me on which pages it was used? Thanks, nadav ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't speedy the image yet. I think I provided three sources to back up the claim that the image is an iconic photo on the image page. I am certain that a wikipedia article on this image would pass notability guidelines. GabrielF 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm a little bit confused. According to Template:Non-free historic image "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic Image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who took the Image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this Image to illustrate the event in question..." Further, I don't understand how images cannot be used to illustrate articles about the events the images depict when photos of newspaper front pages can be used for that purpose: "This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the newspaper or the individual contributors who worked on the articles or images depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question..." from Template:Non-free newspaper image. It is worth nothing that September 11, 2001 attacks contains both a fair use image [5] and a front page: [6]. Am I misunderstanding something or are we not interpreting fair use consistently?
I also have to wonder whether our interpretation is overly strict. I'm not a lawyer but do have some familiarity with fair use. Take for example Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited, Dorling Kindersley Publishing, and RR Donnelley & Sons Company (pdf), where the Second Circuit appeals court ruled that the use of small versions of copyright concert posters to illustrate the career of the Grateful Dead in a coffee table book qualified under fair use. The court repeatedly says that by combining the images (in reduced size) with information about the career of the Dead, the photos served "a purpose separate and distinct from the original artistic and promotional purpose for which the images were created"
“ | In sum, because
DK’s use of the disputed images is transformative both when accompanied by referencing commentary and when standing alone, we agree with the district court that DK was not required to discuss the artistic merits of the images to satisfy this first factor of fair use analysis. |
” |
I'd encourage you to read the court's (very lucid) opinion. Maybe you'll interpret it differently than I did, but it seems pretty clear to me that the courts are okay with small versions of photos used as a minor part of a new work (an encyclopedia article) with a purely educational purpose. GabrielF 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This is our reply to your reply to the above context, also posted on that thread.
We are well aware of the stipulations. Most of our business is suplying high resolution versions of our images 400 dpi and above, a far higher quality that is rrequired by commercial users of our images, than what we are contributing to Wikipedia. There is a growing market in low res images for internet use, but we feel contributing a couple of hundred images to Wikipedia is not going to effect our bottom line. Bottom line, we aren't worried about it. As to the issue of commercial distribution, that falls into an entire other area outside of copyright law. The images may of course be used in an editorial context if attibution to source is made as per our condition. Commercial use is beyond our scope since images of well known personalitities for commercial products require in addtion to copyright permission a license which can only be issued by the heirs of the estates of such persons or their authorized representatives. In other words, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. That is beyond our ability or authority to do. As for derivative works, basically the same rules apply. They can use the images any way they see fit as long as they cite the source. At such low resolution as we are supplying, to be quite frank, their use is generally limited to the internet in editorial contexts such as this. One thing that does come to mind is, will we have to go through this every time we upload additional images? Or is there a way to avoid this in the future. There are a lot of articles in which we feel we could enhance the article by contributing images to them. --
PersonalityPhotos
02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Howcheng, thanks for writing/editing the captions for the various POTD's. I checked them all and found nothing to complain. Keep up the good work. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at Talk:Operation_Wrath_of_God#Use_of_Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg_in_this_article so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, the instructions on the page indicate that this template should not be subst'ed. The Evil Spartan 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to update DYK? Someone filled up the Next Update a while ago, but we're at ten hours since last update. Rigadoun (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the unused Image:HallThruster_1.png kept, since all the previous raster images I nominated as obsolete with a SVG version were deleted. OK, quite a few of them were really crappy by comparison, but others were not. What, exactly, is the official policy on this? I know Commons is having a big debate on this right now, but that's a different animal. -- Pekaje 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just a couple things I want to ask. First, I'm tryign to learn how to do these, so if I make any mistakes (I think i messed something up in the update i did earlier this morning), just let me know. My main question is, if I create two articles, both following the guidelines of a DYK article, and they have the same "fact", could I combine the two into one DYK article? I haven't seen that so I don't know itf that's acceptable, though I guess I don't see why it wouldn't be. Keep up the good work at DYK, btw.-- Wizardman 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just combined them if that's okay :)-- Wizardman 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The hook seems fine to me. Look out tomorrow though when I'm planning on writing an article on an Irish player who had two brothers, three cousins and a son who all played for Ireland! Andrew nixon 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The hook looks great. I hope it gets to the main page! =) Thanks for nominating it. LaNicoya •TALK• 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Howdy. Thanks for the heads up on the non-free status of the photos I took ( here and here) of the Calder sculpture. However, if you read further down US Copyright Act in section D, the copyright is only valid for the life of the author. Does the copyright then transfer to his estate? I can't find any other pictures of Calder works on WP or Commons that use this tag. Thoughts? Thanks! pinotgris 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Glad you are featuring Jean Balukas as the lead dyk but I have one quibble with the editing of the entry (is it necessary that it be shortened?) the edited entry has far less impact I think because it loses the most important part: she is the only player to win seven U.S. Opens, period. The fact that the seven wins were consecutive makes it even more impressive but being consecutive is secondary. Reading the current entry, someone could easily believe that other players won more U.S. Opens, just not consecutively. If DYKs were even longer I would have loved to mention that her streak started at 13 years of age.-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination for housetrucker on Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 7. As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, what is the next process? cheers :-) Mombas 08:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
last year you deleted this image. The reasons given in the deletion request were OR, AB. Would you be so kind to point me a page where I could decipher these cryptic abbreviations or simply tell me what they stand for? :) There is an identical image on the Portuguese Wikipedia pointing the English one as a source, but now this source is gone... I need to know what to do with our image :). Thanks for your help, PatríciaR discussão 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The image was uploaded by Andreas Kaufmann. I merely recompressed it, as can be seen from the file history. It would make more sense for you to talk to him about it. -- Zundark 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your comments and the others who pitched in. I've learnt a lot. Do you think it is clean enough to remove the tag now? Shodobe 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Howcheng. If my memory isn't tricking me, the image Image:IndianaTempleDoom.jpg is a reupload of the recently deleted image Image:Indiana Jones 1.jpg. Can you check that?
Even if they're not the same Image:IndianaTempleDoom.jpg is wrongly tagged as a screenshot (Indiana Jones movies don't use an odd screen proportion of 485 × 739 and the characters don't face the camera). It's a copyrighted image that Lucasfilm Ltd. licenses for its clients and partners, like imdb, probably under written permission. That is, even if these images are not the same, they engage in the same error. Do you believe the later could be speedy deleted so? Thanks, -- Abu badali ( talk) 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Howard,
I just wanted to let you know I have finally promoted Ygnacio to GA
and congratulate you on your efforts, not to mention to thank you for exhibiting a superb and exemplary committment to editing Wikipedia and taking part in the GA process as nominator and author. It has been a real pleasure to see all my peskiness being handled so well.
Congratulations again and good luck with your further nominations, which I am looking forward to!
PrinceGloria 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You and the number of articles you have successfully submitted to DYK has been noted here because you have been discovered as one of the twenty-five highest DYK article contributors. If you feel compelled to continue to update your number of DYKs on this list, and therefore the list itself, then it would be very helpful and help make sure that the list is as up-to-date as possible. If you, indeed, do not wish to be present on this list, then please notify me, the creator. Regards, —A • D Torque 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about DYK and Pisonia brunoniana. Am chuffed. Thanks for your great work with the DYK. Kahuroa 12:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for using my factoid on the DYK section - it made my week! Have a good one. -- Yahoo!Sirius 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Since you adjusted the nom, I give you credit for it. Thank you. Smee 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I c-uploaded both, because the frame version will still be on the MainPage, though it hasn't been protected at Commons. The redirect still works (though it hides the c-uploaded info on the frame).-- Pharos 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created a warning template specific to {{ GFDL presumed}} images - {{ GFDL presumed warning}} - that can be used when tagging them with no source/no license. Would it be possible for you to change the "no source" and "no license" buttons of your script so that they will search the text for "{{GFDL presumed" and "{{GFDL-presumed", and if either string is found, use {{ GFDL presumed warning}} instead of {{ image source}}? Thanks. -- BigDT 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the consensus is pretty much, "You're screwed." There's not much we can do for this situation. You can keep trying different passwords for your Bababoum account, but if that doesn't work, you'll have to create a new account and start editing from there. If you do the latter, you may want to make redirects at User:Bababoum and User talk:Bababoum to your new account and add an explanation of what happened. Sorry. howcheng { chat} 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks anyway. Is there no way the password of the account can be changed? 82.29.19.104 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. -- Poeticbent talk 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I appreciate very much your contribution. Thanks. Happy wikiEditing! CeeGee 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just c-uploaded Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg, but I'm rather concerned about its copyright status. It has been labeled PD-ineligible, without a clear justification. The only discussion of it copyright (the issue was not raised at its FP nomination) appears to employ flawed reasoning (we do not consider Livermore images PD). I suggest we skip this image over until such issues can be fully discussed.-- Pharos 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for response on my copyright question. I have edited the image to reflect {{ PD-self}}. I simply wanted to be directed as to how a user logs an image's copyright so that it is not removed and would like to make sure that by adding {{ PD-self}} to the image it will not be removed. You're assistance is much appreciated. Danread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danread ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
In case you don't check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles regularly, the car you wanted identifying is almost certainly a 1931 Chevrolet Independence AE 4-door sedan. :) HTH, Lewis Collard! ( natter) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to give source if an image is confirmed PD-art? I found a black-white reproduction of one image that confirms it is a 17th century piece, do I need to find a color version if we have a color or is it enough to mention author and details, without a hyperlink to a source?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
HI. What about my History of Exploration in Tibet article for a DYK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Atar Volant has been redirected to SNECMA Atar Volant, could you add the DYK tag to the redirected page. Thanx, STTW (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, You deleted this entry back in March 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_dominguez_leiva I don't find your reasons convincing, you state: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" Antonio Dominguez is the author of more than twenty books in French and Spanish. He currently resides in London, hence the entry in English. Please reconsider. Thanks.
I got a notice that this article made it, but I don't see it on the DYK page. Am I in the right place? Wrad 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, even better! Thanks. Wrad 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, and thanks especially for your hard work maintaining DYK. -- Samir 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng,
As per your suggestions in my talk page, I have responded to the deletion notice of Image:Garudi_gombe.jpg in its talk page here.
By the way, I have also moved the article Karanji lake to Karanji Lake.
Thanks for your suggestions -- Amarrg 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng! This image is scheduled as POTD for 26th May, but I've just nominated it for delisting. Is there any chance you could shuffle it for one of the other images so that the nomination can run its course? I'm reasonably confident that there'll be a consensus to delist, in which case it would be better if it didn't make an appearance on the main page this week, IMO. It's already had its day of fame back in 2005, so that doesn't seem unfair. -- YFB ¿ 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you want me to prove that they came from the trailer? I could send you the trailer if you want... By the way, I typically run trailers in slow motion when I do screenshots in order to avoid text, etc. -- PhantomS 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the nom in May 16 for Scientology Task Force, nom by me, created by Like.liberation, and issues addressed and fixed up by ClaudeReigns. What do you think of it for a future DYK at this point? Smee 06:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
Hello, regarding your message on my talk and template Template:POTD/2007-06-15 ; I find it consistent and not going to details text involve key points. Maybe only "dictator" could be a bit wrong as he usually referred as "authoritarian president" or "authoritarian head of state", but as article text also uses and "dictator" it would be no drama if current definition be used. Cheers, M.K. 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. First, I want to apologize for the inconvenience of going through every one of the images I have uploaded without a source. It was an involuntary mistake. I just did not know that also with them, I have to use references. I will work on correcting the ones I have used in the articles written by me, but I do not mind if some others are deleted. I have been an excellent contributor to the wikipedia and work hard on my articles, to let a loose end. Sadly, my work has been brought to attention only due to this source image issue. I have taken myself most of the images I have used in historical articles from material in the NY public library, they can be found in some books and most of them come from private collections. However, there are not references about the photographers, probably because they are more than a hundred years old. I am going to add a source were they can be verified. In the articles about painters, I have tried to upload the images to the Wikimedia Commons. It is with the movie poster images that I am lost. I can specify the source, but I do not know what kind of explanation about why is permitted under the fair use policy other than being a low-resolution, smaller version of a poster used to illustrate the movie article. Can you give me a hint?. Thanks Miguelemejia 9:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, to upload a non-free cover of a magazine it must meet the following criteria:
In order for the image to be used there must be mention of SI in the article. In addition, the image should appear next to the mention, that is why the article states that Charles Barkley made his first appearance on the magazine, per fair-use rationale. Other Fair-Use rationale includes:
The fair use rationale used here is similar to MJ's free-use rationale. Please inform if you feel otherwise. Zodiiak Dial Z 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, this is just a friendly warning. I noticed that you tagged some images I'd transferred to the Commons as missing sources and also done so on their versions in Wikipedia. I managed to transfer those to the Commons whilst on auto-pilot so they should definitely be challenged there. My bad.
However, I got into a whole heap of trouble on Wikipedia the other day when I'd tagged 100 or so PD-art images with the {{ nosource}} template and caused an almighty row. Personally, I'm with you, all images, PD or not, should have source information - as its about verification of the authenticity of the image even if copyright is 99.9% certain due to age - but this wasn't the view of the rest of the community at the time. As you can read at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive244#Sources for Mona Lisa?, I got quite a hammering. Hopefully you may have a more friendly reception than I did....but don't be surprised if you meant with indignance. Madmedea 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just delete the pics, I'm aware of how blatant copyright paranoia has gotten around here, no need to waste anyone's time nominating them all and notifying me. I learned this a couple of weeks when all the pics in Lawrence Taylor were nommed and my arguments failed to save them. Pardon me if I didn't nom them all myself. Quadzilla99 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Howcheng. There are two magazine covers that I nominated for deletion a while back but weren't deleted by closing admin Johntex, and I plan to send them to Deletion review. I would like your opinion on either is this a good idea. (Actually it were 3 magazine cover images that he decided to keep, but one of them was speedy-deleted as a copyvio right after his ifd closing)
As suggested in WP:DRV, I've firstly contacted the admin in this talk and, after reviewing his decision, he said he still believe the images should be kept, and suggested a Deletion Review process.
Admin Johntex usually has a very permissive view on usage of unfree content, as evidenced by his comments on this ifd debate about a magazine cover he uploaded shortly before his brief interest on ifd closing that led to the keeping og that two (actually 3) magazine covers.
So, if you had the time, could you take a look at the discussion in this talk and say if you believe that a deletion review would be in place?
Best regards, -- Abu badali ( talk) 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I believe someone has compromised your screen name, take a look at the talk page for this article.-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} tag available and applying it to my upload. I still have not been able to find that tag in the list of tags so I went ahead and added to the list so others like me might have a chance at finding it. -- Dbiel 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to delete the image of Frank Norris that I uploaded. I've been waiting for someone to find a better one! -- MosheA 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What determines a featured picture? It seems you're the only one who can do that, which to me is against the community philosophy of Wikipedia. Maiku 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you listed some images on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The uploader I assume (an IP) of this section has changed the license tags. Assume good faith on this one? Garion96 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Howcheng. I didn't fully understood why you withdrew your nomination for deletion of this magazine cover. The only mention in the article to this cover image is the phrase "His singular celebrity status as the Sixers franchise player led to his first appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated" followed a reference pointing to the player's nba bio where the magazine (neither it's cover) is not mentioned at all.
What exactly made you change your mind in regards to the concerns you original posted on the nomination ("Does not increase the user's understanding in a way that words alone cannot...")?
I'm asking that because I plan to nominate the image for deletion, but you previous nomination and withdrawn sound to me as a clue that I'm probably missing something.
Thanks, -- Abu badali ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hair chr m 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there is no consensus to delete this image (as well as the following WWII images), it also has a fair use rationale.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree, this is a highly notable image that increases the readers understanding of the related articles. Therefore: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - N 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand why you deleted the above image. There was no clear consensus to delete it.
I assume you put it under this category:
The photo in southern Africa though is quite iconic. Indeed Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world and has come to be an emblem of Zimbabwe's problems. I am not go to quote all the different newspapers, TV channels, magazines and Internet sites that showed it - that is on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 9 page. As someone who follows African news I would say that this image was quite iconic. The showing of the photos caused an international uproar. IMHO to make a decision on this photo one needs to research the topic that the photo illustrates. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng,
As requested, the OTRS ticket number I received after having permission granted for our use of the "donhertzfeldt.jpg" image is: #2007051710015191
PLEASE NOTE that this is NOT for the Wireimage photo that you removed. I did not upload the Wireimage photo. This is for the jpeg of the same name that had previously been in the Don Hertzfeldt bio (Don at his art desk) and had been nominated for deletion. Please restore this image.
Thanks! Sleepyjuly 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg- the IFD nomination was unanimous in favor of keeping it, and it was explained (at great length) why this image is necessary. Raul654 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you deleted this image, would you properly close the discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 22? Not only is it still receiving comments, but I can't request a DRV on it until the discussion is closed. :) Thanks. - N 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please show me where is this rule written?
"Regardless of the importance of the scene, this screenshot does not expand the reader's understanding in a way that words cannot; the text already adequately describes the scene."
Or is this your POV? Because mine is strongly against your statement an has the same value.
Please show the rule that states these words, please. MachocariocaMachocarioca
Boink! Why was the image deleted? -- Cat chi? 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You edited my article on Wc3Banlist proposing that it doesn't fit the speedy delete specifications. Can you tell me what is to happen from this point? Is my article safe from deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.137.52 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
Can you please block User:84.241.150.26 and User:Blowland? They have no constructive edits whatsoever, and keep on vandalising my userpage. Can you please, have this activeties stopped by banning 'em? My page is being vandalised on a near daily base now! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being so polite with me in your edit summaries. I am curious though, why retain the deletion notices once the discussion has been archived? How long will these deletion notices stay in place? Smee 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
Hi,
On the basis of the DRV discussion, I'm restoring the image. I do this because I believe the legal issues remain unclear (and most commenters want to discuss the issue more); absent intervention from WP:OFFICE, this means that further discussion is warranted and helpful to the understanding of all. The image should be relisted at IfD: I think you are best able to write the proper nomination.
FWIW, donning my lawyer's hat for a moment, I think your argument regarding the image's significance is a good one -- without any text supporting it in the article, the image is merely decorative. However, I think the argument regarding "improper enrichment through the disregard of commercial rights" is a red-herring. Historical photographs, even when still under copyright, are routinely used in critical analysis when the conditions of fair-use are met: as others observed, that is the purpose of the fair use doctrine. The question is whether the conditions of fair use are met. At present, I think they are not, but the article might be edited to include analysis of the photograph by its supporters. Whether that is appropriate for WP to do is an issue for further discussion also, unless ordered from on high. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
So is the most recent version strong enough? I'd have thought it was almost too strong, but then I'm not engaged in policing the policy. Tony 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This FP is no longer used in the tesseract article. There are several "improved" versions by the same author that are now used in that article instead. Perhaps User:JasonHise should be contacted about nominating one of the improved versions to replace this FP, before we feature this on the MainPage? Thanks.-- Pharos 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You removed two galleries from this article citing WP:NFCC. Then someone put it back. I just have a query - one or two of them appear to be public domain (see User:Stonedead's uploads), although some might be dubious (see WP:HD#Bond Girls). Is it still grounds to remove the galleries because most of the images are fair use? x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, as a fellow contributor to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images I was wondering if you'd take the time to comment on the proposal I've made on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Proposal for an addition to the page introduction. Thanks. Madmedea 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Howcheng, I humbly thank you for selecting this article for DYK, and also for letting me know. Badagnani 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I noticed that the image of Arvo Pärt, was deleted ( Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_30). I missed the I&MfD, so I might be speaking up too late, but I think that the Image:JD_Salinger.jpg precedent could apply to Pärt. Searching on "Arvo Pärt reclusive" shows that he, like Gorecki, is famously reclusive--perhaps not to the same extent as Salinger, but certainly orders of magnitudes more than most composers. Thanks for considering. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have a picture I would like to nominate for "picture of the day" in July 2007. I have two questions, A) Am I allowed to put on on, since I am not an admin, and B) If not could you do it?
God Bless,
Politics rule 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't download it. As I said in the image file, I copied it from the archives: I went to the park and copied it from the original. The park has 10s of 1,000s of documents that are not online. Hal Jespersen 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you, pleace tell me who decides that the picture is no longer meets the standarts to be a featured picture and becomes a Former Featured Picture.Thanks.-- Mbz1 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Thanks for telling me that Howcheng; as I'm sure you have now been able to guess, my area of expertise is not exactly images, and I am now much ore cautious about uploading them. It appears, however, that my image qualifies the policies, but I have imply uploaded it on the wrong project. I thought of it, but opted instead to upload it here to be safe. However, I hope to be able to use the tag you mentioned when I can. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify why you feel that this image may be in violation of Fair Use policy guidelines. I believe that an adequate Fair use rationale was given, and that it is in compliance with all "non-free" guidelines. If you have any specific concerns, I would be happy to address. -- MChew 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I have one question, though. What makes you think that the picture of Pen-Ek Ratanaruang is more appropriate on Main Page than that of the only extant Sassanid fortress? -- Ghirla -трёп- 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I thought that it only needed to be featured image in the Wikimedia Commons. I'm sorry again. João Felipe C.S 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the pictures (DONT HAVE TO) be there. But it would let the reader know what they are reading about. For example:
"In Madonna's 1998 hit, Ray of Light, The Twin Towers where shown, breifely, 4 times in the Koyaanisqatsi inspired music video, two from street level and two aerial dusk shots."
I'm sure the reader would like to see a picture of that. It would be much more intresting to see images that go along with the subject they are reading.
Now if I'm allowed to put the pics up (which I still havent gotten a firm YES or NO awnser) I wouldnt clutter up the page, just show 3 or 4 per sighting, for example TV, Music Videos, Cartoons, and those couple of images would only be the most prominent one. Not every sighting would have a picture.
The pictures, yes, would decorate the page, but also show the reader the sighting, while they read about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pag293 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
"Do you see a link to a page that has this image? No? Then there's STILL NO SOURCE" There is no need to yell. Nor is there a need for all images to have a link. It clearly specifies its source, and the license is acceptable. Perhaps you should check your contributions to make sure you didn't mis-tag any other images in addition to this one? In any case, yelling and sarcasm will not help build an encyclopedia, nor will deleting valid images. Bushytails 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, quickimgdelete is broke for me. I click on an item and it opens up the tabs as needed but just leaves it at the edit screens and doesn't do anything. I thought it might have been a recent change to my monobook so I undid that but still the same thing. I've tried IFD, ORFUD and redundant and all the same thing. I'm hoping it's just me but I dunno what else to do. Any ideas? MECU≈ talk 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You removed two images from Culture in North Omaha, Nebraska under the premise of #8. The usage of those images in this article does not meet the criteria for deletion because they both significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article. Please note that this article is not a list, gallery, or navigational element. Please consider restoring the images. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When are you going to knock off the Church of Scientology bashing on the DYK? There are about 270 articles related to Scientology on Wikipedia out of how many total articles? How come you (as in YOU, Howcheng) are giving such undue weight to Scientology-bashing. Smee I understand because I understand her POV-pushing. What is YOUR story? -- Justanother 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep this discussion at AN/I please. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You voiced an opinion on this image at IFD, but maybe were not fully aware of the situation. The image was orphaned by me, as I took it down thinking it might be copyvio (as my comment directly prior to your's describes). I went ahead and de-oophaned the image, as that seems to have created some confusion. The question is really whether this image is copyvio, or perhaps useable as fair use. Kind of confusing, which suggests maybe I should have just left it on the page until this is sorted out. Just wanted to let you know so you are not voting on an incorrect assumption. thanks. — Gaff ταλκ 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a small token of appreciation.
No worries, people. Happy editing! howcheng { chat} 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Img fine with administrators previously. Rationale given. Please would you look into the reason for that please. Many thanks for your attention to this matter Londo06 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Get an email stating that they are willing to do this and forward it to the people at OTRS (see that page for instructions). Regards, howcheng { chat} 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Will look to do that shortly. Londo06 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in regards to your recent self-nominations at T:TDYK, please be sure to read the rules at Wikipedia:Did you know before you nominate any more articles. In short, many of your nominations do not meet the minimum expansion requirements and it would save us a lot of time if you did not submit those that do not qualify, such as Thomasites and Lorenzo Ruiz. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. please see this page. Thank you-- OsamaK 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination on Frederick Rotimi Williams. Alexlovesme (UTC)
The link shows that the page is linked to an NPS site link. View North Carolina State Capitol for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staplegunther ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)).
North Carolina State Capitol is clearly on a U.S. govenrment page. It is sourced, linked, and verified. If you want to be a picture Nazi go for it, but give us users some credit for trying. -staplegunther
Careful, Howcheng! Conquest of Hispania refers to the Roman Republic's conquest of Spain, not the invasion of the Visigothic Kingdom under Justinian's Byzantine Empire 500 years later! Slac speak up! 02:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Yomangani talk 12:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Smee 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Carabinieri 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Smee 04:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I will not be able to protect the TFA or POTD images on June 18 (they haven't been chosen yet). Just thought I would notify you on the odd chance this isn't taken care of by someone else. Thanks.-- Pharos 06:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. So did the non-bashing Scientology article not find its way to the front page? User:Slightlyright put a lot of effort into that article. -- Justanother 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been continuing to take pics with my point and shoot digital. I am wondering if any of the first 11 photos at User:TonyTheTiger#Selected_Photo_Contributions are worthy. I am not sure which ones would have the best shot, but I am leaning toward the Image:20070513 Pumping Station.JPG, Image:20070601 Victory Monument (2).JPG and Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG. Which do you think are my best? Maybe some day I will get a real camera. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. -- Poeticbent talk 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Adding text "Deletionist Ahoy" to be used in later bot collection of usernames for re-education after Jimbo's lawsuit paranoia and re-usability obsession have subsided and Wikipedia can go back to being a decently illustrated compendium. -- JDG 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng, the real breach of civility is your coming to my user page and shouting "Cease and Desist!" as if you're some kind of police storm trooper, and also in censoring my opinion by reverting your Talk page. If there was anything uncivil in my edit it was the use of the word paranoia in connection with Jimbo Wales, but even that is very light and I doubt the man himself would be offended at all, and it was not directed at you. To refer to you as a Deletionist is not uncivil, as it is accurate and is a descriptive term in growing use among many long-time respected editors (among whom I am not too modest to include myself, from circa November `02). To mark you for re-education is no more insulting than your telling scores of users that they have not understood Wikipedia policy on use of images. I request that you restore my edit and that you resolve to squarely face the consequences of your many deletions instead of attempting to hush it up through threats and reversions. JDG 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings again. I was processing rfu images, and I'm stumped regarding Image:Jp01.jpg. Note that it's used in two different articles, for two different purposes, and the image talk page is heated. Could you process this one for me? Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Stefan
14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Yeah, I was wondering how we keep track of that. Where should the info be retained? On the T:DYK/N page? Mango juice talk 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm tired of waiting for feedback on a FP? proposal and figured I'd take the mountain to Mohammed. I get the impression that people are happy to let me ride roughshod over the criteria and I've already made several bold changes there, more on a "silence equals consent" basis than anything else. However I'm a little less confident about merging these three criteria simply because I may be overlooking something. I've spent a good deal of time raking over existing image use policy for reasons to keep these separate and can't find any. Would you do me a favour and let me know what you think? It always seemed crazy to me that the criteria need ever cover more than six or seven key areas, so this merge would be more-or-less job done. Thanks. mikaul talk 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I have downplayed many words and sentences. Please see if its ok and nominate to DYK. Dineshkannambadi 23:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So what should the proper tag with this (if it is not deleted)? I am not going to contest if image should be deleted by more experienced wikipedians. What I want is to just improve the article on F. Sionil Jose. This is all "labyrinthine" to me, these images incorporation to articles. Dragonbite 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks, I have added the source, hope it is ok now. The photo was taken by me a few years ago by the way, and I have seen it now on Pucci's myspace page, which is not private.
Thom.
Thank you for using Charles Netter at DYK.
Could the image, now orphaned, be used in the Mikveh Israel article? The stamp commemorates the centennial of the Mikveh Israel, and using it there will satisfy the rule of not using stamps to illustrate the subject depicted on the stamp.
-- Derwig 07:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi HowCheng! Thanks again and again for your contribution. Happy DYKeditibng! CeeGee 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS! Cholga is a SUPERSTAR ¡Talk2Cholga! Sexy Contribs 01:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that "replceable fair use" of quickimgdelete.js uses rfu2, the edit summary ("will be deleted in seven days") is a bit out of date. Could you change it? hbdragon88 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I closed the IFD on Image:Political Shirley Temple.jpg as a keep, pending a response from NASA about the actual source of the image. This is the response I got:
“ | Though this photo was posted years ago, I am fairly certain that it was not taken by anyone at this site, therefore your suspicion may be a good one. The photo was given to our personnel by Ms. Black during our Female Frontiers project for use on our website. I do not have any further information on its source.
Sorry, (name redacted) |
” |
So there are several annoying implications here and it's a road that I really don't want to go down. We've been taking it as gospel that anything on a NASA site that doesn't say otherwise is PD. I don't really like going down the road where this is going to lead.
At any rate, as far as this goes, since it is most certainly not PD, the question is whether we can use it as fair use. We now have an actual source for it so that isn't an issue. My inclination is to say no, since it is purely decorative. But I think it ought to be re-IFD'd since there is new information that has come to light. Any thoughts? -- BigDT 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to drop a note on a deletion of yours that I undid so that my actions do not come across in any way as a wheel war. Two admins, User:Quadell and I, had previously reviewed the image and found it to be fair use. If you feel that my actions are errant, I am more than happy to discuss this further. Anyhow, cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're there, can you post the next update, which is rather overdue? It has six articles, but the On this Day today and tomorrow are both short, so it looks okay. Rigadoun (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the second time I've seen you incorrectly state what freedom of panorama is in a deletion discussion, so I am going to copy verbatim my response to you from here: "Actually you are incorrect. FOP allows taking derivative pictures of copyrighted works. Please see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama (which I must admit I co-wrote with an admin from Commons). There is no requirement it be only a small portion of the work. What you are thinking of is called "de minimis" use of the copyrighted work. See de minimis. However in this case, Australian FOP clearly doesn't apply." I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm merely trying to explain to you a concept which is foreign to most people in the United States. - N 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way I can undelete that image? It is needed for an article. Tzadik 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Anschlusstears.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Raven4x4x
09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I hereby award you this purple star for withstanding personal attacks and speculative accusations levied at you on IFD. You are also commended for keeping your cool -- most of the time. :-)
–
Quadell (
talk) (
random)
19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
(←) I understand your point, but these really are primary sources. If they were PD, Wikisource would be the place to put them, but they're not, so that's out. I'm sure you know that primary sources don't belong here. howcheng { chat} 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Howcheng. I didn't mean for this award to send more fire your way. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the best response is no response at all. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification about POTD selection. I'll look into the caption. -- MattWright ( talk) 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
I hereby award you the The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your work on defending the correct use of the fair use policy Bleh999 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
Interview much? How predictable, the image-editors awarding themsleves, again. Sorry, don't mean to spoil the fun (at my expense?), again. El_C 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete the picture of Jack Sarfatti on his web page?
I am confused by your comment. :-) User:SamuelJohnson714
Did Sarfatti object to Wiki using those images of him? SamuelJohnson714 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I re-forwarded the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is that correct? Thanks, SosoMK 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see:
Please see updated discussion pages at those images pertaining to La Femme Nikita (TV series): previous decision concerning the use of all those DVD covers from the packages of the DVD box sets copyrighted by Warner Bros. needs to be revisited, in view of material posted more recently in the discussion pages and the notices at User talk:Tardis pertaining to the images (cover art, screen captures from copyrighted merchandise). Fair use rationales still under dispute for each of those images (all copyright-protected cover art). See 28 June 2007 and scroll to Article listing as well. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For an example of all the discussion pages re: those DVD cover art images and screen captures made from the DVD and/or on-air broadcast television episode programs (contained in them), see Image talk:NikitaS1DVD.jpg. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Howcheng, have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Change format of page listings? There is support for a new sub page system (akin to IFD or WP:Copyright problems). Would you be able to update your JavaScript to start this, perhaps to begin at 0:00 UTC (of whatever day)? Thank you very much; your JavaScript is much appreciated. -- Iamunknown 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Yomar has uploaded the image again... Image:US Army OF11.gif and reinserted it in the articles: Ranks of the People's Liberation Army & General of the Armies. I put a {db-repost} tag on the image. -- noclador 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Italian Army Ranks. this is definitely not original research. I was a member of the Italian Armed Forces for 4 years and have never seen/heard of the rank he is pushing into the article. It is a complete fabrication and I every major editor to the Italian Army articles (me, User:Flanker, user:Empar) is angered by this behaviour. -- noclador 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Another one: User:Iormar and Image:US Army OF 11.gif -- noclador 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Yomar, User:Iormar and User:Yormar are all suspected socketpups of the worst wikipedia vandal Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. -- noclador 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to update the DYK again? I posted things to Next Update a few hours ago, hoping someone would notice, but we're up to 8 hours now. Rigadoun (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I did a fair use reduce on this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FFI-2.png can you delete the old revision Bleh999 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you also worked on WP:PUI. Could you perhaps have a look at the upload's of user User:LukaP I am half in mind of deleting (almost) all his pictures. :) But before (if) I do that I thought I'd check with someone else. Examples are Image:T2-3.jpg, first tagged as fair use, after I tagged it as replaceble it changed to Public Domain, a lot of images I listed on WP:PUI (June 30) and a bunch more in his contributions. See also his talk page and archive which is full of image warnings. Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the license for this POTD. The sources no longer work. Are you active with POTD? If so, can you advise on what to do here? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a new article to be considered for DYK about a journalist Selvarajah Rajivarnam. Thanks Taprobanus 14:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite Abu Badali's dismissal of it, the image itself is indeed notable (iconic even) in Israel. I am not saying it should be undeleted just yet though, but could you tell me on which pages it was used? Thanks, nadav ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't speedy the image yet. I think I provided three sources to back up the claim that the image is an iconic photo on the image page. I am certain that a wikipedia article on this image would pass notability guidelines. GabrielF 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm a little bit confused. According to Template:Non-free historic image "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic Image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who took the Image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this Image to illustrate the event in question..." Further, I don't understand how images cannot be used to illustrate articles about the events the images depict when photos of newspaper front pages can be used for that purpose: "This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the newspaper or the individual contributors who worked on the articles or images depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question..." from Template:Non-free newspaper image. It is worth nothing that September 11, 2001 attacks contains both a fair use image [5] and a front page: [6]. Am I misunderstanding something or are we not interpreting fair use consistently?
I also have to wonder whether our interpretation is overly strict. I'm not a lawyer but do have some familiarity with fair use. Take for example Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited, Dorling Kindersley Publishing, and RR Donnelley & Sons Company (pdf), where the Second Circuit appeals court ruled that the use of small versions of copyright concert posters to illustrate the career of the Grateful Dead in a coffee table book qualified under fair use. The court repeatedly says that by combining the images (in reduced size) with information about the career of the Dead, the photos served "a purpose separate and distinct from the original artistic and promotional purpose for which the images were created"
“ | In sum, because
DK’s use of the disputed images is transformative both when accompanied by referencing commentary and when standing alone, we agree with the district court that DK was not required to discuss the artistic merits of the images to satisfy this first factor of fair use analysis. |
” |
I'd encourage you to read the court's (very lucid) opinion. Maybe you'll interpret it differently than I did, but it seems pretty clear to me that the courts are okay with small versions of photos used as a minor part of a new work (an encyclopedia article) with a purely educational purpose. GabrielF 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This is our reply to your reply to the above context, also posted on that thread.
We are well aware of the stipulations. Most of our business is suplying high resolution versions of our images 400 dpi and above, a far higher quality that is rrequired by commercial users of our images, than what we are contributing to Wikipedia. There is a growing market in low res images for internet use, but we feel contributing a couple of hundred images to Wikipedia is not going to effect our bottom line. Bottom line, we aren't worried about it. As to the issue of commercial distribution, that falls into an entire other area outside of copyright law. The images may of course be used in an editorial context if attibution to source is made as per our condition. Commercial use is beyond our scope since images of well known personalitities for commercial products require in addtion to copyright permission a license which can only be issued by the heirs of the estates of such persons or their authorized representatives. In other words, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. That is beyond our ability or authority to do. As for derivative works, basically the same rules apply. They can use the images any way they see fit as long as they cite the source. At such low resolution as we are supplying, to be quite frank, their use is generally limited to the internet in editorial contexts such as this. One thing that does come to mind is, will we have to go through this every time we upload additional images? Or is there a way to avoid this in the future. There are a lot of articles in which we feel we could enhance the article by contributing images to them. --
PersonalityPhotos
02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Howcheng, thanks for writing/editing the captions for the various POTD's. I checked them all and found nothing to complain. Keep up the good work. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at Talk:Operation_Wrath_of_God#Use_of_Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg_in_this_article so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, the instructions on the page indicate that this template should not be subst'ed. The Evil Spartan 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to update DYK? Someone filled up the Next Update a while ago, but we're at ten hours since last update. Rigadoun (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the unused Image:HallThruster_1.png kept, since all the previous raster images I nominated as obsolete with a SVG version were deleted. OK, quite a few of them were really crappy by comparison, but others were not. What, exactly, is the official policy on this? I know Commons is having a big debate on this right now, but that's a different animal. -- Pekaje 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)