This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, could you explain this edit? I'm not aware of any consensus that prohibits the use of Foundation copyrighted images in userspace. Any discussions I have seen suggests that they should not be treated the same as other unfree images. I'm not aware there has either been a change in local consensus or any directive from the Foundation prohibiting their use... WjB scribe 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page, but that's not my image -- I just reverted some vandalism on it years ago. :) The listed uploader is User:SimonMayer who may be inactive, and the upload is marked as a public domain update of User:Nohat's Wikipedia logo. -- brion 20:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(what he said, and also): Are you using a script or suchlike to send these messages? If so you might set it to ignore people who only reverted the image. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
There are issues exporting as SVG with Dia. Hopefully, the problem will be resolved in the version of Dia packaged in Ubuntu 7.10. -- Mathieugp 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The use of images containing foundation logos, while they are indeed copyrighted, is permissible in userspace, even while other non-free images are not. It would indeed be quite absurd to suppose that a website's use of its own logo could violate its copyright on that logo. Each of the many, many times this issue has been raised, the consensus of the board and of Wikipedia has been that use of WMF-copyrighted logos in userspace is appropriate. Additionally, screenshots of a tool for Wikimedia, be the tool released under a free license or not, for the purpose of illustrating the software in question on its appropriate project page or discussion page are permissible on those pages by simple common sense. While the screenshots were mis-tagged, I should think it a far better use of your time to retag them or contact me to ask for an explanation of copyright than to go spam me with three redundant templates and mark the images for deletion. Tagging is a job for a bot, not a person. AmiDaniel ( talk) 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I was curious - have you ever considered a JPEG crusader bot to convert photographic GIFs that should be JPEG format? Or are you strictly a PNG fan? :) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would you welcome an editor that has been here for considerably longer than you? It is one of the shortfalls of using templates blindly. Your edit to Joseph Smith did nothingto improve the article so I don't see why you would issue a warning for "deleting information". You might want to review the purpose of using warning templates and use better judgement in when to apply them. You did no harm, but it is just an annoying approach to editing. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a {{ prod}} template to @icon sushi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've done this as it's been previously deleted based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@icon sushi. I can't find any news articles or other assertion of notability - if you disagree please remove the prod template, drop in some references or drop me a line - Peripitus (Talk) 10:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dot, would you mind unleasing the bot? The conversion categories are getting a little backlogged...also, had a quick question - are black & white photos usually better off in PNG than JPG format? Thanks... Videmus Omnia Talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, It seems to me that the {{ Non-free Wikimedia logo}} tag is a license. The original author apparently put a GFDL tag for his part of the work that was removed. To be honest I don't know... -- lucasbfr talk 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Cite newspaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 08:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it really a good idea to convert, e.g. JPEG directly to PNG? If someone uploads a logo in JPEG form, it may have visible artifacts. In that case, someone should convert the source image (probably a bitmap or vector image) directly to PNG. If you convert the JPEG, the artifacts would still be in the PNG. This isn't usually an issue for GIF, but in some cases creating a GIF loses colors, since GIFs can only represent 256 colors. So if you have a BMP image with more than 256 colors, BMP->PNG is better than BMP->GIF->PNG. I don't think file size really outweighs these concerns at the present. Superm401 - Talk 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, if you wish to run now then I'll nominate you. Lemme just look through your contribs and the like. I should have the nom up in a day or two for you to finish. Wizardman 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:Juno_icon.png as {{ no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The article World Community Grid you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:World Community Grid for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what happened here? SQL( Query Me!) 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, seeing that you are the user that most recently made edits to the historical template On my sub-page ( User:Cocoaguy/historical alt) i created a version using the ambox template, maby we could update the main one too. -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never supported that argument. Using a non-free image when a better free image could be created is not acceptable. It diminishes portability for no good reason. And I've seen many articles copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and that's fine. We should use them until we have something better. — Remember the dot ( talk) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have closed your RFA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised, and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. -- Deskana (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw... Better luck next time. — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
First, let me express my deepest regrets that your RFA did not pass this time around. The reason I opposed was about your answer to question #8. Also, as Daniel pointed out, the lack of knowledge between a block and a ban. I hope that why I opposed does not affect your opioion of myself, and Wikipedia as a whole! Not everyone gets lucky on there first RFA attempt. I see people on there 3rd, or 4th passing and becoming admins. Take all opposeing and supporting votes comments into what you do, and try again soon!
Thanks,
Pat Politics rule! 02:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You asked me for comments on the NFCC stuff. Yes we are here to make an encyclopedia, but note in the logo, its the free encyclopedia. This means that we should be using non-free content at the absolute minimum needed. You were not very clear to me (or to others) what you considered a significant use. Often times we are very able to write an article with only free images. If you have any questions feel free to ask me in a response on my page, or to ask me on IRC (if you use it). Best of luck. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Scrolling up your talk page, I see you have uploaded Image:Mac_listbox_screenshot.png, which has been tagged as replaceable fair use. It is in this case, we can get a free image of a listbox, open any Linux application that uses them take a screen shot of it. I won't point out any more images unless you ask, but I hope you understand better why I chose to oppose. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No promises, but I suspect that you will be more clearly admin material and your readiness will be more apparent to the "RfA cabal." By then you should have an even better grasp of things and should be able to show it. Best of wishes. If I can help you in some way, let me know. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice you asked a few opposers for ideas on what could be done differently, so perhaps this info is of interest. I considered voting in your RfA but did not. I'd just mention a couple of reasons why I didn't support:
Since you didn't ask for this feedback, it's fine if you want to delete my comment after you read it. EdJohnston 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see you answered on 21 october. I have been unexpectedly busy these last few weeks, and should have entered debate with you then. I feel kind of guilty, my apologies ^^;; You did the right thing by replying to my oppose by the way. Jolly good show there. :-)
The reason for my oppose is because you didn't quite grasp the basics of how wikipedia rules work.
I think a beginning admin doesn't have to know everything, but the one thing they *should* know is that it's ok to Ignore All Rules. Just do what you think is right, and ask other admins to check you from time to time. As a guide to what is "the right thing", be sure to refer to m:Foundation issues.
In the past the "ask other admins" requirement was less of a problem, since the admin-to-user ratio was somewhat sane, and odds were that another admin would check you anyway. These days, do call attention to anything you're not sure about, and after that things still work like a regular wiki -with consensus and all, basically- At any rate, none of the admin actions can permanently harm the encyclopedia anymore these days, so don't sweat it.
Past that point there's also a question of "how the rules are made". Well, despite anything others may have told you, The Ignore All Rules policy (irony!) automatically makes everything else a guideline. You *may* follow our guidelines or not, at your discretion, as long as you improve the encyclopedia. If you find that you are acting at odds with some guideline, and other people agree with you that you're actually doing the right thing (ie, there's a consensus), go ahead and edit the guideline to conform with reality. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.
The opposite approach, of following a guideline to destruction until people get fed up with you and change it, is against the recommendations of the guideline that says you should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point (about the rules).
Act first, compare with guidelines, if guidelines are wrong, fix them.
Of course, after many iterations, the guidelines start to look very polished and sane, but naturally that doesn't mean we should abandon the procedure that made them! What happens if the situation changes somehow? We want to continue to be able to respond in a flexible way.
And that's why things are the way they are, at least, as far as I'm aware. :-)
-- Kim Bruning 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Should PNG Crusade Bot be processing BadJPGs? These images need to be remade or heavily cleaned up, not just converted to another format. Doodle77 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Blood Water Mission Know Love Act.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm not sure why you're confused; perhaps you should read my comment more carefully, as you seem to have misquoted it. I expect a certain minimum level of contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. In your case, numerous commenters suggested that you are inexperienced in image issues, among other things. Going forward, I think you'd learn quite a lot by visiting more XfDs, and familiarizing yourself with the various fora that address copyright issues. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i've read the Opera article a couple of times and i can see some jargon. The features section simply doesn't describe what makes Opera different/special and most of what's there is jargon and should be sent to the features page with material coming back the other way. The future releases contains jargon, it shouldn't be moved or deleted and needs to be rewritten. I can and will rewrite that section for FF because i'm familiar with all the concepts, but i cant do that with Opera because i dont use it. I also noticed that there is large mention of Opera's use in portable devices and others. The Wii or cell phones for example. This section could be described as simply unimportant and possibly jargon, because anybody who has tried to surf the net using those devices will know what a mostly pointless time it is. Even PDA's are generally unsatisfying and are good for email and not much else. I've started watching this page so if you want to open a discussion on the talk page about jargon then i'd be generally agreeably, altho i wont be editing the article myself because i dont know enough about the subject. Operating 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have any idea what you're talking about. I use Firefox and (occasionally) Opera, and while I have IE on my computer, it's IE7, not IE6. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the save on that Judas Priest image. I guess I mislabelled it. Go figure. Howa0082 01:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah.. even I felt the same... We actually don't need a snapshot to illustrate the slow file system operations. The reason I uploaded that file was the original file was a jpg version... full of compression artifacts, to an extent that the text was not readable... so I replaced jpg version of the image to png version... I think, You can "speedy delete" that file...
Mugunth 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Better luck on your second attempt. SGGH speak! 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, don't worry about it. It's a shame you didn't succeed, but I'm sure that, if you take note on all the pointers left down by people participating in your RfA, you're next attempt should be more successful. Best wishes, Lra drama 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kifaya-2005-06-09.jpg used to be listed on the Arabic Wikipedia, now they have http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kifaya-protest-20050508-banner.png on wikipedia commons. Thanx -- The Brain 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have tagged many images with either {{badGIF}}, {{badJPEG}}, or {{shouldBePNG}}. However, your PNG crusade bot has been fairly inactive for the past month. Could you please re-activate it to convert the images that I have tagged? ANDROS1337 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to questions about the image for the Harry Meshel article. Unfortunately, I don't think I can add anything to the rationale already included on the image page. The subject in question was affiliated with a state governmental body rather than a federal one. So, the fact that the image is an official portrait doesn't qualify it as free. The only thing I can argue for is its possible historical value, because it depicts the subject at the height of his political career. Thanks, again, for your message! - twelsht ( talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
How will the proposed change affect existing pages? If it means that a mass change of all the article the template is used on, I would certainly oppose it, but I'm not fully up to speed on why you suggested it in the first place. - Mgm| (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you've been able to get dates linked in a couple of {{cite whatever}} templates! Keep up the good work! RossPatterson ( talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a defense of the above-mentioned image to the image's Talk page. Please reconsider the speedy deletion. Thanks. Nerwen ( talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you have marked this image as {{ withpermission}}. Do you have some record of the permission? What permission has been granted. If not, its a good case for fair-use ; just remove the tag. John Vandenberg ( talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What's the use in adding this template to an image?! I suppose the word should always bothers me. I can edit a bitmap but I can't edit a SVG, so converting an image I made means I can't improve it later, which is freakin' annoying, so unless you want to change an image now, forget the stupid template markers. Tom Ruen ( talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline it states that "A separate rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article." and this image does not comply. Using the guideline then any of the images could be used in the infobox provied a rationale was given. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
One man's vauge is another's way of thinking. I'd thought better of you. Disappointing. At LEAST do the right thing with such redirects so I don't have to pickup your dirty laundry. // Fra nkB 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's just I added an infobox but found it redundant so changed my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmeherenow ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...OK (yeah, that was stray code from who-knows-where that had got stuck on text I'd cut-and-pasted...). Justmeherenow ( talk) 02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. This is in response to your message of Oct. 27. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Apparently I did not notice the message at first (I must have jumped to the next one down and then left the page), and then I went on 'wikibreak' for a few weeks.
I hope this is not seen as a lazy answer, but I did sincerely concur with what Meegs said on the RFA, and I also concur with his response to your later message on his talk page.
Regarding your response to Q7 on the RFA, which I also expressed concerned about, you seemed to suggest that the primary reason for limiting non-free content is portability and ease of re-use. To me this suggested a lack of understanding or belief in free content as a core part of our mission, one with which we do not compromise. Perhaps this is essentially a semantic misunderstanding, or a difference in personal values; to me, freedom is important firstly for its intrinsic moral value, and secondarily for its practical benefits (eg. portability). (See this article by our own Benjamin Mako Hill for a good argument against compromising the "ethical" position of freedom, in this case vis-a-vis Creative Commons)
The fact that taking such a position would seem to put me in the ranks of the "hard-core free content activists" with which you disagree (and to be clear, I'm nothing of the sort) suggests to me that one of the foundation issues is not of primary importance to you. (Kim Bruning opposed the RFA on similar grounds.)
Again, sorry for the late reply, and I wish I had had more time to elaborate on the RFA before it closed. Happy editing, heqs ·:. 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The star with the red X has been used for former featured articles for ages. Former featured lists uses the same style (though the X is different) on those articles which have not been converted to the {{ ArticleHistory}} framework. The icon you've chosen is the former FAC icon; changing this should really be discussed. Gimmetrow 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Its prose is 60KB, not even close to the 100KB max. IMHO it is fine. — BQZip01 — talk 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Those files were given to me a long time ago for publicity purposes. I didn't make them, so I can't make them GFDL, but they were intended for this kind of purpose but I am not currently in contact with the person who handed them to me. What license do you suggest? Thanks. Nesnad ( talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to track down the person who provided these to me. But if I can't these aren't easily replaceable. This is a closed campus in South Korea. Not the easiest to acquire photos of, unlike what it seems to imply on the photos should we delete asap page. I would appreciate a waiting on the sudden delete action. And in the meantime, I'll try to get in contact with the person who provided these and see if they (or newer ones, its been years now) could be released as public domain. Nesnad ( talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I intend for the copy on commons to be deleted but for the copy on EN to stay. IMO I don't see how any significant use of that particular image can be lost with a fair use license. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the place I obtained the image from did not give attribution to the copyright holder. I certainly doubt I could find it now; it's been too long. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Not my business I know, but didn't all items belonging to imperial Japan loose copyright after world war two? So isn't the allegation of needing a copyright over active tagging?? Seems that way to me. Nesnad ( talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I just delete all of these pages blindly, or is there any manual intervention required to determine if it needs deletion? Please reply on my talk page. east.718 at 00:12, December 15, 2007
FYI, I've offered a counter to your proposal at the Village Pump. We already have the technology to fix the inconsitency problem for all readers without any article changes, we just need to take advantage of it by setting a default date format. Bugzilla:12318 has been opened requesting this be done. RossPatterson ( talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at MOSNUM. I wonder whether the developer is finally responding to the activity at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Begin forwarded message:
From: bugzilla-daemon@mail.wikimedia.org Date: 18 December 2007 1:27:27 PM To: tony1@iinet.net.au Subject: [Bug 4582] Use date format preference on unlinked dates
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #73 from Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> 2007-12-18 02:27:25 UTC --- Let's keep it open for now and see what happens...
hi,
thanks for the notice. I asked site owner to relicense the image to wikipedia under suitable license. Give me few more days, please. -- Monk ( talk) 07:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
source provided
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/SVG_In_HTML_Introduction
"will only work in browsers that support XHTML (not HTML) and SVG integration."
firefox does not support SVG natively in html - only in xhtml.
thanks LNRyan ( talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer on signing! And thanks for the welcome! LNRyan ( talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse my late reply once again. The answer to your last question is yes; please feel free to notify me if you have another RFA. Cheers, heqs ·:. 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Cite press release/doc2
Nicely perservered, that looked like a long FA Candidacy! I hope to see more articles of that caliber in the future- Congratulations! -- Kiyarrlls ton 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This effectively says that I attached the false license to the image. You should have checked my experience and contributions history before implying that. Also, you failed to notify me of submitting my image for deletion. Anyway, I responded to your deletion proposal at the article talk. In the future, please talk before shooting. And, a friendly advise, this aggressive attitude would unlikely help you in getting the content conscious editors to cooperate with your actions even if they are legitimate. I've seen it all but new editors might be taken aback by such approach. -- Irpen 09:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Same criticism about your tagging of Image:Maabarah children.jpg for deletion. You did this as a modification of its legend in the article Jewish refugees. Nothing in the talk page of the article, nothing in the page or talk of the image. Not exactly due process; I reverted it. In the future, please talk before shooting. Emmanuelm ( talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked up what RFA means. Yeah, you'd make a fine Admin, you seem to fit the profile. Emmanuelm ( talk) 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well your proposal went live on the Uploader which is a good thing. I'm still concerned that too many BCB images will get deleted for not having the article= tag in them. Is there some way to make Article= an optional variable in the Image Summary Template? Then the uploader could have it as a visible option, and experienced users would just know that they don't need it for free images. Mbisanz ( talk) 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dot,
Thank you for notifying me of the listing of Image:Winfrey.JPG at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Have I put the wrong licensing tag on the photo? If this is not the problem, what can I do to rectify the situation?
Neelix ( talk) 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I happened across three images you tagged for deletion and posted notices to an uploader here. There has been some discussion about image deletion notification on the non-free content page and while Betacommandbot does notify the talk page of the article where an image is currently being used, you don't appear to do this. The advantage being that editors who have such a page on their watchlist may be able to fix the fair-use rationale and so avoid deletion, especially in cases where the original uploading editor is no longer active. This seems to be the case with Jtdirl and for many older uploaded images where the fair-use rationale is an issue. I have often noticed that an image was no longer available on an article page only AFTER it was already gone and only when someone marked the image on the article page as now deleted either by commenting it out or deleting the reference to it. Perhaps you would consider leaving an article talk page notification in future as this might facilitate the rescuing of many images that may otherwise go unnoticed. Obviously not knowing what an image was makes it difficult for any interested editor to decide if it might have been worth while saving by writing or fixing the fair-use rationale or been better to attempt to find a suitable replacement. I reply where I first post). Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on two new image system proposals over here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal and figured you might be interested in them either commenting or if you know coding. Mbisanz ( talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rtd, my edit in the section for IE8 has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding whether or not IE8 will display sites in standards mode by default, which is what Acid2 requires. The simple fact is, even in standards mode, the IE8 example videos show that IE8's development UI still displays a scroll bar which means it fails the test regardless.
So to clarify, IE8 currently fails Acid2 in both situations. Thus it is wrong for the article to state that "an internal debug build of IE8 passes the Acid2 test in IE8 standards mode" since it clearly does not. See the screencap at [1]. Hope you understand and revert to my previous version. GreyWyvern ( talk) 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, could you explain this edit? I'm not aware of any consensus that prohibits the use of Foundation copyrighted images in userspace. Any discussions I have seen suggests that they should not be treated the same as other unfree images. I'm not aware there has either been a change in local consensus or any directive from the Foundation prohibiting their use... WjB scribe 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page, but that's not my image -- I just reverted some vandalism on it years ago. :) The listed uploader is User:SimonMayer who may be inactive, and the upload is marked as a public domain update of User:Nohat's Wikipedia logo. -- brion 20:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(what he said, and also): Are you using a script or suchlike to send these messages? If so you might set it to ignore people who only reverted the image. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
There are issues exporting as SVG with Dia. Hopefully, the problem will be resolved in the version of Dia packaged in Ubuntu 7.10. -- Mathieugp 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The use of images containing foundation logos, while they are indeed copyrighted, is permissible in userspace, even while other non-free images are not. It would indeed be quite absurd to suppose that a website's use of its own logo could violate its copyright on that logo. Each of the many, many times this issue has been raised, the consensus of the board and of Wikipedia has been that use of WMF-copyrighted logos in userspace is appropriate. Additionally, screenshots of a tool for Wikimedia, be the tool released under a free license or not, for the purpose of illustrating the software in question on its appropriate project page or discussion page are permissible on those pages by simple common sense. While the screenshots were mis-tagged, I should think it a far better use of your time to retag them or contact me to ask for an explanation of copyright than to go spam me with three redundant templates and mark the images for deletion. Tagging is a job for a bot, not a person. AmiDaniel ( talk) 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I was curious - have you ever considered a JPEG crusader bot to convert photographic GIFs that should be JPEG format? Or are you strictly a PNG fan? :) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would you welcome an editor that has been here for considerably longer than you? It is one of the shortfalls of using templates blindly. Your edit to Joseph Smith did nothingto improve the article so I don't see why you would issue a warning for "deleting information". You might want to review the purpose of using warning templates and use better judgement in when to apply them. You did no harm, but it is just an annoying approach to editing. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a {{ prod}} template to @icon sushi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've done this as it's been previously deleted based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@icon sushi. I can't find any news articles or other assertion of notability - if you disagree please remove the prod template, drop in some references or drop me a line - Peripitus (Talk) 10:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dot, would you mind unleasing the bot? The conversion categories are getting a little backlogged...also, had a quick question - are black & white photos usually better off in PNG than JPG format? Thanks... Videmus Omnia Talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, It seems to me that the {{ Non-free Wikimedia logo}} tag is a license. The original author apparently put a GFDL tag for his part of the work that was removed. To be honest I don't know... -- lucasbfr talk 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Cite newspaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 08:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it really a good idea to convert, e.g. JPEG directly to PNG? If someone uploads a logo in JPEG form, it may have visible artifacts. In that case, someone should convert the source image (probably a bitmap or vector image) directly to PNG. If you convert the JPEG, the artifacts would still be in the PNG. This isn't usually an issue for GIF, but in some cases creating a GIF loses colors, since GIFs can only represent 256 colors. So if you have a BMP image with more than 256 colors, BMP->PNG is better than BMP->GIF->PNG. I don't think file size really outweighs these concerns at the present. Superm401 - Talk 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, if you wish to run now then I'll nominate you. Lemme just look through your contribs and the like. I should have the nom up in a day or two for you to finish. Wizardman 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:Juno_icon.png as {{ no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The article World Community Grid you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:World Community Grid for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what happened here? SQL( Query Me!) 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, seeing that you are the user that most recently made edits to the historical template On my sub-page ( User:Cocoaguy/historical alt) i created a version using the ambox template, maby we could update the main one too. -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have never supported that argument. Using a non-free image when a better free image could be created is not acceptable. It diminishes portability for no good reason. And I've seen many articles copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and that's fine. We should use them until we have something better. — Remember the dot ( talk) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have closed your RFA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised, and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. -- Deskana (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw... Better luck next time. — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
First, let me express my deepest regrets that your RFA did not pass this time around. The reason I opposed was about your answer to question #8. Also, as Daniel pointed out, the lack of knowledge between a block and a ban. I hope that why I opposed does not affect your opioion of myself, and Wikipedia as a whole! Not everyone gets lucky on there first RFA attempt. I see people on there 3rd, or 4th passing and becoming admins. Take all opposeing and supporting votes comments into what you do, and try again soon!
Thanks,
Pat Politics rule! 02:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You asked me for comments on the NFCC stuff. Yes we are here to make an encyclopedia, but note in the logo, its the free encyclopedia. This means that we should be using non-free content at the absolute minimum needed. You were not very clear to me (or to others) what you considered a significant use. Often times we are very able to write an article with only free images. If you have any questions feel free to ask me in a response on my page, or to ask me on IRC (if you use it). Best of luck. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Scrolling up your talk page, I see you have uploaded Image:Mac_listbox_screenshot.png, which has been tagged as replaceable fair use. It is in this case, we can get a free image of a listbox, open any Linux application that uses them take a screen shot of it. I won't point out any more images unless you ask, but I hope you understand better why I chose to oppose. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No promises, but I suspect that you will be more clearly admin material and your readiness will be more apparent to the "RfA cabal." By then you should have an even better grasp of things and should be able to show it. Best of wishes. If I can help you in some way, let me know. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice you asked a few opposers for ideas on what could be done differently, so perhaps this info is of interest. I considered voting in your RfA but did not. I'd just mention a couple of reasons why I didn't support:
Since you didn't ask for this feedback, it's fine if you want to delete my comment after you read it. EdJohnston 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see you answered on 21 october. I have been unexpectedly busy these last few weeks, and should have entered debate with you then. I feel kind of guilty, my apologies ^^;; You did the right thing by replying to my oppose by the way. Jolly good show there. :-)
The reason for my oppose is because you didn't quite grasp the basics of how wikipedia rules work.
I think a beginning admin doesn't have to know everything, but the one thing they *should* know is that it's ok to Ignore All Rules. Just do what you think is right, and ask other admins to check you from time to time. As a guide to what is "the right thing", be sure to refer to m:Foundation issues.
In the past the "ask other admins" requirement was less of a problem, since the admin-to-user ratio was somewhat sane, and odds were that another admin would check you anyway. These days, do call attention to anything you're not sure about, and after that things still work like a regular wiki -with consensus and all, basically- At any rate, none of the admin actions can permanently harm the encyclopedia anymore these days, so don't sweat it.
Past that point there's also a question of "how the rules are made". Well, despite anything others may have told you, The Ignore All Rules policy (irony!) automatically makes everything else a guideline. You *may* follow our guidelines or not, at your discretion, as long as you improve the encyclopedia. If you find that you are acting at odds with some guideline, and other people agree with you that you're actually doing the right thing (ie, there's a consensus), go ahead and edit the guideline to conform with reality. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.
The opposite approach, of following a guideline to destruction until people get fed up with you and change it, is against the recommendations of the guideline that says you should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point (about the rules).
Act first, compare with guidelines, if guidelines are wrong, fix them.
Of course, after many iterations, the guidelines start to look very polished and sane, but naturally that doesn't mean we should abandon the procedure that made them! What happens if the situation changes somehow? We want to continue to be able to respond in a flexible way.
And that's why things are the way they are, at least, as far as I'm aware. :-)
-- Kim Bruning 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Should PNG Crusade Bot be processing BadJPGs? These images need to be remade or heavily cleaned up, not just converted to another format. Doodle77 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Blood Water Mission Know Love Act.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm not sure why you're confused; perhaps you should read my comment more carefully, as you seem to have misquoted it. I expect a certain minimum level of contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. In your case, numerous commenters suggested that you are inexperienced in image issues, among other things. Going forward, I think you'd learn quite a lot by visiting more XfDs, and familiarizing yourself with the various fora that address copyright issues. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i've read the Opera article a couple of times and i can see some jargon. The features section simply doesn't describe what makes Opera different/special and most of what's there is jargon and should be sent to the features page with material coming back the other way. The future releases contains jargon, it shouldn't be moved or deleted and needs to be rewritten. I can and will rewrite that section for FF because i'm familiar with all the concepts, but i cant do that with Opera because i dont use it. I also noticed that there is large mention of Opera's use in portable devices and others. The Wii or cell phones for example. This section could be described as simply unimportant and possibly jargon, because anybody who has tried to surf the net using those devices will know what a mostly pointless time it is. Even PDA's are generally unsatisfying and are good for email and not much else. I've started watching this page so if you want to open a discussion on the talk page about jargon then i'd be generally agreeably, altho i wont be editing the article myself because i dont know enough about the subject. Operating 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have any idea what you're talking about. I use Firefox and (occasionally) Opera, and while I have IE on my computer, it's IE7, not IE6. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the save on that Judas Priest image. I guess I mislabelled it. Go figure. Howa0082 01:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah.. even I felt the same... We actually don't need a snapshot to illustrate the slow file system operations. The reason I uploaded that file was the original file was a jpg version... full of compression artifacts, to an extent that the text was not readable... so I replaced jpg version of the image to png version... I think, You can "speedy delete" that file...
Mugunth 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Better luck on your second attempt. SGGH speak! 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, don't worry about it. It's a shame you didn't succeed, but I'm sure that, if you take note on all the pointers left down by people participating in your RfA, you're next attempt should be more successful. Best wishes, Lra drama 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kifaya-2005-06-09.jpg used to be listed on the Arabic Wikipedia, now they have http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kifaya-protest-20050508-banner.png on wikipedia commons. Thanx -- The Brain 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have tagged many images with either {{badGIF}}, {{badJPEG}}, or {{shouldBePNG}}. However, your PNG crusade bot has been fairly inactive for the past month. Could you please re-activate it to convert the images that I have tagged? ANDROS1337 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to questions about the image for the Harry Meshel article. Unfortunately, I don't think I can add anything to the rationale already included on the image page. The subject in question was affiliated with a state governmental body rather than a federal one. So, the fact that the image is an official portrait doesn't qualify it as free. The only thing I can argue for is its possible historical value, because it depicts the subject at the height of his political career. Thanks, again, for your message! - twelsht ( talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
How will the proposed change affect existing pages? If it means that a mass change of all the article the template is used on, I would certainly oppose it, but I'm not fully up to speed on why you suggested it in the first place. - Mgm| (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you've been able to get dates linked in a couple of {{cite whatever}} templates! Keep up the good work! RossPatterson ( talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a defense of the above-mentioned image to the image's Talk page. Please reconsider the speedy deletion. Thanks. Nerwen ( talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you have marked this image as {{ withpermission}}. Do you have some record of the permission? What permission has been granted. If not, its a good case for fair-use ; just remove the tag. John Vandenberg ( talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What's the use in adding this template to an image?! I suppose the word should always bothers me. I can edit a bitmap but I can't edit a SVG, so converting an image I made means I can't improve it later, which is freakin' annoying, so unless you want to change an image now, forget the stupid template markers. Tom Ruen ( talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline it states that "A separate rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article." and this image does not comply. Using the guideline then any of the images could be used in the infobox provied a rationale was given. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
One man's vauge is another's way of thinking. I'd thought better of you. Disappointing. At LEAST do the right thing with such redirects so I don't have to pickup your dirty laundry. // Fra nkB 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's just I added an infobox but found it redundant so changed my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmeherenow ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...OK (yeah, that was stray code from who-knows-where that had got stuck on text I'd cut-and-pasted...). Justmeherenow ( talk) 02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. This is in response to your message of Oct. 27. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Apparently I did not notice the message at first (I must have jumped to the next one down and then left the page), and then I went on 'wikibreak' for a few weeks.
I hope this is not seen as a lazy answer, but I did sincerely concur with what Meegs said on the RFA, and I also concur with his response to your later message on his talk page.
Regarding your response to Q7 on the RFA, which I also expressed concerned about, you seemed to suggest that the primary reason for limiting non-free content is portability and ease of re-use. To me this suggested a lack of understanding or belief in free content as a core part of our mission, one with which we do not compromise. Perhaps this is essentially a semantic misunderstanding, or a difference in personal values; to me, freedom is important firstly for its intrinsic moral value, and secondarily for its practical benefits (eg. portability). (See this article by our own Benjamin Mako Hill for a good argument against compromising the "ethical" position of freedom, in this case vis-a-vis Creative Commons)
The fact that taking such a position would seem to put me in the ranks of the "hard-core free content activists" with which you disagree (and to be clear, I'm nothing of the sort) suggests to me that one of the foundation issues is not of primary importance to you. (Kim Bruning opposed the RFA on similar grounds.)
Again, sorry for the late reply, and I wish I had had more time to elaborate on the RFA before it closed. Happy editing, heqs ·:. 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The star with the red X has been used for former featured articles for ages. Former featured lists uses the same style (though the X is different) on those articles which have not been converted to the {{ ArticleHistory}} framework. The icon you've chosen is the former FAC icon; changing this should really be discussed. Gimmetrow 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Its prose is 60KB, not even close to the 100KB max. IMHO it is fine. — BQZip01 — talk 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Those files were given to me a long time ago for publicity purposes. I didn't make them, so I can't make them GFDL, but they were intended for this kind of purpose but I am not currently in contact with the person who handed them to me. What license do you suggest? Thanks. Nesnad ( talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to track down the person who provided these to me. But if I can't these aren't easily replaceable. This is a closed campus in South Korea. Not the easiest to acquire photos of, unlike what it seems to imply on the photos should we delete asap page. I would appreciate a waiting on the sudden delete action. And in the meantime, I'll try to get in contact with the person who provided these and see if they (or newer ones, its been years now) could be released as public domain. Nesnad ( talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I intend for the copy on commons to be deleted but for the copy on EN to stay. IMO I don't see how any significant use of that particular image can be lost with a fair use license. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the place I obtained the image from did not give attribution to the copyright holder. I certainly doubt I could find it now; it's been too long. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Not my business I know, but didn't all items belonging to imperial Japan loose copyright after world war two? So isn't the allegation of needing a copyright over active tagging?? Seems that way to me. Nesnad ( talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I just delete all of these pages blindly, or is there any manual intervention required to determine if it needs deletion? Please reply on my talk page. east.718 at 00:12, December 15, 2007
FYI, I've offered a counter to your proposal at the Village Pump. We already have the technology to fix the inconsitency problem for all readers without any article changes, we just need to take advantage of it by setting a default date format. Bugzilla:12318 has been opened requesting this be done. RossPatterson ( talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input at MOSNUM. I wonder whether the developer is finally responding to the activity at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Begin forwarded message:
From: bugzilla-daemon@mail.wikimedia.org Date: 18 December 2007 1:27:27 PM To: tony1@iinet.net.au Subject: [Bug 4582] Use date format preference on unlinked dates
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #73 from Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> 2007-12-18 02:27:25 UTC --- Let's keep it open for now and see what happens...
hi,
thanks for the notice. I asked site owner to relicense the image to wikipedia under suitable license. Give me few more days, please. -- Monk ( talk) 07:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
source provided
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/SVG_In_HTML_Introduction
"will only work in browsers that support XHTML (not HTML) and SVG integration."
firefox does not support SVG natively in html - only in xhtml.
thanks LNRyan ( talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer on signing! And thanks for the welcome! LNRyan ( talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse my late reply once again. The answer to your last question is yes; please feel free to notify me if you have another RFA. Cheers, heqs ·:. 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Cite press release/doc2
Nicely perservered, that looked like a long FA Candidacy! I hope to see more articles of that caliber in the future- Congratulations! -- Kiyarrlls ton 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This effectively says that I attached the false license to the image. You should have checked my experience and contributions history before implying that. Also, you failed to notify me of submitting my image for deletion. Anyway, I responded to your deletion proposal at the article talk. In the future, please talk before shooting. And, a friendly advise, this aggressive attitude would unlikely help you in getting the content conscious editors to cooperate with your actions even if they are legitimate. I've seen it all but new editors might be taken aback by such approach. -- Irpen 09:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Same criticism about your tagging of Image:Maabarah children.jpg for deletion. You did this as a modification of its legend in the article Jewish refugees. Nothing in the talk page of the article, nothing in the page or talk of the image. Not exactly due process; I reverted it. In the future, please talk before shooting. Emmanuelm ( talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked up what RFA means. Yeah, you'd make a fine Admin, you seem to fit the profile. Emmanuelm ( talk) 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well your proposal went live on the Uploader which is a good thing. I'm still concerned that too many BCB images will get deleted for not having the article= tag in them. Is there some way to make Article= an optional variable in the Image Summary Template? Then the uploader could have it as a visible option, and experienced users would just know that they don't need it for free images. Mbisanz ( talk) 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dot,
Thank you for notifying me of the listing of Image:Winfrey.JPG at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Have I put the wrong licensing tag on the photo? If this is not the problem, what can I do to rectify the situation?
Neelix ( talk) 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I happened across three images you tagged for deletion and posted notices to an uploader here. There has been some discussion about image deletion notification on the non-free content page and while Betacommandbot does notify the talk page of the article where an image is currently being used, you don't appear to do this. The advantage being that editors who have such a page on their watchlist may be able to fix the fair-use rationale and so avoid deletion, especially in cases where the original uploading editor is no longer active. This seems to be the case with Jtdirl and for many older uploaded images where the fair-use rationale is an issue. I have often noticed that an image was no longer available on an article page only AFTER it was already gone and only when someone marked the image on the article page as now deleted either by commenting it out or deleting the reference to it. Perhaps you would consider leaving an article talk page notification in future as this might facilitate the rescuing of many images that may otherwise go unnoticed. Obviously not knowing what an image was makes it difficult for any interested editor to decide if it might have been worth while saving by writing or fixing the fair-use rationale or been better to attempt to find a suitable replacement. I reply where I first post). Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on two new image system proposals over here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal and figured you might be interested in them either commenting or if you know coding. Mbisanz ( talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rtd, my edit in the section for IE8 has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding whether or not IE8 will display sites in standards mode by default, which is what Acid2 requires. The simple fact is, even in standards mode, the IE8 example videos show that IE8's development UI still displays a scroll bar which means it fails the test regardless.
So to clarify, IE8 currently fails Acid2 in both situations. Thus it is wrong for the article to state that "an internal debug build of IE8 passes the Acid2 test in IE8 standards mode" since it clearly does not. See the screencap at [1]. Hope you understand and revert to my previous version. GreyWyvern ( talk) 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)