I INCLUDED the link to which this image comes from. Though this image comes from a chapter of the Kappa Alpha Theta sorority, this image has been released into public domain by the international headquarters of the society. If you doubt it, please contact the staff via their website at www.kappaalphatheta.org. -- Dysepsion 07:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply on User talk:Dysepsion

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I really don't understand the copyright violation of this. That image of the badge has been used by many chapters of many websites of that particular organization. Just because it doesn't mention specifically that it is in public domain doesn't mean that it isn't. The organization certainly allows the use of its images in presenting the various aspects of the society. If you DOUBT this, please CONTACT members of the organization via E-MAIL to clarify. If you want a fairuse tag on it I would suggest that "the photo is only being used for informational purposes".

To be honest, I find this argument to be wasting. Thousands of untagged images are circulating on Wiki and I find it hard to believe why this particular image is controversial.

-- Dysepsion 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, its just an image of a flag, its in the public domain .-- CltFn 16:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply on User talk:CltFn

I was sure I did add a tag of "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media..." etc... The source of the image is from www.blackalicious.com under Gallery/Publicity. —preceding unsigned comment by Flunkycarter ( talk •  contribs)

Reply on User talk:Flunkycarter

Posted on User_talk:Avenue

Hi, I found your monobook.js file tagged for speedy deletion at Avenue/monobook.js, I went ahead and moved it to User:Avenue/monobook.js. It should actualy work now, just so you know in case stuff suddenly starts poping up :P -- Sherool (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oops! Thanks for fixing that up. - Avenue 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You removed the fair use orphaned tag from Image:Email instructions for talkpage.PNG - actually it was fair use as the wikimedia logo which was rather large on it is not GFDL (despite the tag) and images should not include it. I will list it on ifd as it is still unused. I told the original user to make a new version without the logo to clear things up. Justinc 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Justinc.

yes not sure about this. As far as I can see if they only have text or GFDL content they should be GFDL, but anything with the logo should be discouraged. You are right, probably not speedy though. Justinc 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello! I hope you're well, and thanks for your note. I'm sorry if I tagged those images erroneously; it is not my habit or intent to do so. It is my intention that those two images be deleted: they have been replaced with similar images (all of which I created) having more accurate names – Image:HDImap current.png and Image:HDImaplegend current.png; thus, they are therefore redundant. I will list the images on WP:IFD.

I have been uploading more images to the Commons with time; I only wish that it be the sole repository for media and the interface between Wp and the Commons more seamless. Anyhow, let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I contacted the copyright-holder of the image Image:Lassimaking.jpg and have got his approval for use of the photo in the article Lassi.I have added his copyright status as well as the original URL of the image.Could you please advise if this is a proper way of tagging copyright status to images or there is any better way?Being a new Wikipedian I need some guidance in this regard. Thank you.

Dwaipayanc

Replied on User talk:Dwaipayanc. -- Sherool (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I might apply GFDL under other circumstances, but putting a free license on my ensign would be a bit like putting one on my signature. I've removed all images from my user page. Dro Kulix 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I knew the image was deprecated somehow, but couldn't find the appropriate tag and got into a panic. I've found Wikipedia:Image copyright tags now. Tearlach 16:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi! I found a spelling mistake on your user page, in the section titled Onoging projects, line 1: should be specific and not "spesific". Best, RCSB 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Wow, only one typo :P Thanks though. -- Sherool (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi! Thanx for contacting me about the situation with most of the images I've uploaded. I've tried to change the license tags in most of the images, but I'll be grateful anyway if you can check some of them ( My Pictures) and see if I've done a good job :-D Thanks for helping this poor wiki-n00b, take care and feel free to write me any problem you find. Thief12 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Thief12. -- Sherool (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanx again for helping with the image licensing issue. I think I'm finished with them, but I'd be grateful if you can check some of them, specially this ones: Image:M-jimenez.png (I took this image from the Wikipedia French server), and Image:Coliseo-avion.JPG (this one was taken by me. Should I add anything else?). Thanx again... Thief12 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Thief12. -- Sherool (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

G'day Sherool,

Crikey. I don't even remember making that edit. No idea what I was thinking. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

No problem, you probably clicked the "rollback" button by accident or something, I've had a few "whops!" moments myslef. Just "pinged" you just in case. -- Sherool (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message re the "horse_parts.jpg" thing. P0M 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

per your removal of the image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_gatech; you site the Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy point that it is not part of an article page. Wouldn't that mean that images such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Democratslogo.png would also have to be removed? Why did you remove the image? gujamin 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Gujamin. -- Sherool (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The picture you informed me about i didnt specify is From Freench version of the article about him on Wikipedia,and therefore verifired -- Boom VII. 10:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Boom VII.. -- Sherool (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

http://ankawa.com/album/album3/index.php?directory=.&currentPic=1 -- Yuhanen Beth Tshallo 16:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up on the images. Went and edited them all. Hope they are now satisfactory.

Kusonaga 18:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Now purging. -- Beland 02:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

All fixed. -- Beland 09:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

And i'd expect more out a fellow admin to realize that Vandalism does not include content disputes, particularly on policies and guidelines, which are frequently disputed. Like i've said on all those various talk pages before, i'm not going to stop unless there is a real legal reason (not a wiki-legal reason that can be changed with a click of an edit button and a mob calling itself "consensus") why user pages are any different than anywhere else when it comes to fair use, particularly with the User Democrat template, which would be cutting off the nose to spite the face for the Democratic Party, despite all the incessant paranoia of the Fair Use patrollers. karmafist 02:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hey Sherool,

Thanks for your work taking down the logos of the sports teams. Another user has just come in and created a whole new set of Baseball userboxes with the logos in them (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/US_Sports). They're is no point having the second set when they really should not have the logo, and would otherwise be the same as the first set. I think they should be deleted. Also the question that has come on the talk page is that logos are not copyrighted, but are trademarked. I don't know anything about the legal aspect. -- Jeff3000 16:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Jeff3000. -- Sherool (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I encountered a conflict on this issue regarding My User page and Template:User BoSox. I suppose none of these pages should have the images, right? -- Eddie 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Posted reply on User talk:EddieSegoura. -- Sherool (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info, Sherool. -- Eddie 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sherool, do not remove the protection header from pages and begin revert wars simply because the current version is not to your liking. Whatever grievances you have are properly dealt with in the Talk section of that article, not by violations of Wikipedia policies and other users. Please don't make this a broader issue.

MSTCrow 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Sherool,

I've gone through a couple reverts on {{ User MLB-RedSox}} with Karmafist, and he's gone and changed these templates back to the logo versions.

{{ User_MLB-Padres}} {{ User MLB-Nationals}} {{ User MLB-Athletics}}

He's bringing up the US Democratic Party template, as a basis. I don't think that flies, but just wanted your opinion and backing before I go ahead and revert the logos again.

Thanks, -- Jeff3000 16:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Posted reply on User talk:Jeff3000. -- Sherool (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Sorry about that. I originally actually had a TV screenshot on there but later found a better quality version of the same image at this CNN page. Since it is a family photo, I believed it fell under fair use, if only for reporting on the incident. If it cannot be used, by all means take it off. appzter 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Appzter. -- Sherool (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

In accordance with current guidelines, I believe that the image in question does indeed meet the definition of patent nonsense. Please see the image's talk page for my analysis of policy before removing the speedy deletion tag again. If you still disagree, we can list it at IFD and allow it to go through the normal deletion procedure. Hexagonal 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Howdy! I was trying to figure out why you deleted this particular image? I was not the one who uploaded it, but it was in use on my User page and the user pages of several other Wikipedians! :) I really liked it too :P Anyway... I'm still rather "newish" I suppose and did not know how to go about finding out who deleted it, so I posted a question on the talk page of that image and another admin replied with your name...so here I am. (Incidently I still don't know how to go about finding who deleted an article/image if its not listed in the AFDs/IFDs... if you could also help me with that). I thought I could find it in the IFD backlogs but I checked them (or at least thought I did) for the last 2 weeks or so and did not see it listed. Thanks, -- Naha| ^(talk) 22:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Nahallac Silverwinds. -- Sherool (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that answered all my questions :) -- Naha| ^(talk) 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi ! The translation you requested of Antonio Tabucchi has been completed. I was pruning the entries on the page and noticed the translator didn't tell you ;) So I thought it nice to give you a heads-up :) -- Raistlin 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the information you given on image uploading.

Most of the images I uploaded are created by me though at the time of uploading I didn't release them under GDFL. Now I would like to do that. Will you please let me know how this can be done? MANOJTV 12:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:MANOJTV. -- Sherool (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the information. I will get back to you later for some more additional information. MANOJTV

Hello. You seem to be on quite a "rampage" regarding image deletion, so I decided to help out. :) Could you please delete this image..? It is clearly vindictive, and has only been used to vandalise the Chris article. (see [1]) Also, when encountering future images in KOF articles, if they lack copyright information or source information, Please use {{{fairuse}}} for sourcing and/or contact me on my userpage so I can attempt to find out the source of the image. Thanks. - MegamanZero| Talk 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Posted reply on User talk:MegamanZero. -- Sherool (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I was wondering about the sourcing because every time I looked on my watchlist, you had deleted more images :) Indeed, I'll see about retagging the images properly and getting correct and concise source information. Also, I left a comment on the vandal's talkpage ( [2]) and it seems that vandalization was his only contribution(s). You may want to consider blocking, but he's stopped at the momment (and I left a warning), so I'll just leave it at that. Cheers, - MegamanZero| Talk 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sherool, while checking my user page I noticed that one of the images linked from it disappeared without a trace. I discovered that three images uploaded by me long ago under fairuse licence - Image:Krom.jpg, Image:Krutitsy.jpg, Image:Zvenigorod.jpg - were removed by OrphanBot from the articles on Pskov, Krutitsy, Zvenigorod and deleted without prior notification of myself as the uploader. In the past, when OrphanBot removed fairuse images, I instantly provided the source and restored the images to the article. Can you explain to me why this rule was ignored in this case and who deleted the images? -- Ghirla | talk 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Ghirlandajo. -- Sherool (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks you for explanation, but I have another question now. I attempted to illustrate the article on Peter Bagration with Image:Bagration.jpg from Commons, but the eponymous (although different) image from en.wiki doesn't allow me to do this. How can I link to the commons image, bypassing Image:Bagration.jpg? -- Ghirla | talk 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Ghirlandajo. -- Sherool (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help. If you are searching for fairuse abuse, you may want to check Image:Slavs.jpg and its its counterpart in Commons, as well as Image:Wawka2.jpg, Image:Warszawa2.jpg, Image:Wawka.jpg. The last three images curiously evolved from unsourced {fairuse} in en.wiki through sourced {faruse} in Commons to {PD-self}. -- Ghirla | talk 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Check this. The image was restored to the article, too, although it is far too big for {bookfairuse} and doesn't illustrate the book in question. -- Ghirla | talk 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Ghirlandajo. -- Sherool (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm fairly certain that the image is a painting on a book cover, but given that the name of the painting is unknown and hence, nearly impossible to find, it was given the tag bookcover because it appeared on a book cover. The image most likely falls under PD-art if it is old, or under normal art after 1923 if recent, so it's more than likely that this image is ok, but obviously, it is preferable to find the author. Antidote 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have changed the copyright and sourcing information. ( [3]) - Zero ^Talk 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for the message. I was planning to fix the gallery to remove the pages. I am hoping to have time to fix it up by this weekend. Sorry for the delays -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Its been done. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, since we are not allowed to display fair use images on userpages or user subpages (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (point #9)) I took the liberty of turning the images on your image page into links instead. I'm afraid it doesn't look quite as good, but at least it's no longer violating policy. If you have any free licensed images it's fine to display those, just not the fair use ones. Thanks. -- Sherool (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't perfectly understand, I have never been intereseted that much in copyright infringement. But if you say so, I'll accept the fact, afterall it's your role, I don't complain. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that! In all the faffing about I did to create that (copy to JOE, do two different find-and-replace searches, save, open in KWrite and then paste back to Wikipedia) I completely forgot about hardlinking images and categories. It was also a bit of a last minute thought before I massacred my watchlist from more than 3,700 pages to just over 800! Thryduulf 21:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Problem solved. See Image:Han 125x110 animated.gif. It's author at originaltrilogy.com has released it under the public domain. The Wookieepedian 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:The Wookieepedian. -- Sherool (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Is there any easy way you can tell me which images at User:Nightstallion/notes are FU and should not be used inline? I've no interest in violating FU policy (even though I don't necessarily agree with it), but I don't want to check every image myself, either. ;) Thanks for your help! — Nightstallion (?) 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Posted reply on User talk:Nightstallion. -- Sherool (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have a question concerning the fair use images on my page. They are really small thumbs ( see for yourself), that I use as "quick links" for myself. Is that still wrong? Karol 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Karol Langner. -- Sherool (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You wrote: I'm afraid so. If you only use them as "quick links" anyway I suggest you simply replace the images with links to the images as explained above ([[:Image:some image.jpg]] instead of [[Image:some image.jpg]] for example). -- Sherool (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. I'll remove the fair use images then, and try to fix the ones I can, becuase I have been quite a sloppy tagger. Karol 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I've removed the images from my user space at User:CPMcE/MyTopAlbums. Sorry - I didn't realise this was not allowed. Can you advise on my User:CPMcE/MyTopPeople? Are these allowed? I'll put it up for speedy deletion if not. Thanks. Camillus (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:CPMcE. -- Sherool (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't appreciate this policy, though I suppose I shouldn't be complaining to you about it. One of the reasons I have a gallery of the fair-use images I've uploaded is that they can occasionally be altered or removed. I like to have a place where I can monitor the images without having to visit each one. — Mulad (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Mulad. -- Sherool (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, please turn this gallery (or at least all the fair use images on it) into a list of links instead or something like that as soon as possible. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use images to be displayed in userspace (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy), and acording to this report you have 35 of them on that page. I'm working pretty much at random off that list, so don't feel singled out if others on the list with more images have not yet been notified. Eventualy I'll get around to them all (though hopefully I'm not the only one working on it). Thanks in advance. -- Sherool (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you please tell me which of the images I have in my upload gallery are fair use, so that I can remove those and only those?

Thanks in advance, -- Fibonacci 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Fibonacci. -- Sherool (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid not. Logos, comics and game stuff are most likely fair use, but I'm afraid I don't have an exhaustive list. The biggest bulk is probably the coats of arms though. That's an "icky" category of images. The {{ coatofarms}} tag is counted as a fair use tag, but all it rely says is that the image might or might not be usable. I never know quite what to do with those myself. Anyway, sorry I don't have a list of wich ones are fair use and not, so I'm afraid you just have to check them all and see what kind of license tag they use, unless you can convince someone with a bot to make a list for you. It's not something that absolutely must be fixed tomorow (just as soon as possible), so if you need a few days to go though them all that's ok by me, just as long as it's beeing worked on. -- Sherool (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I'm busy with the university. Maybe tomorrow, or the day after, I'll work on it. While that happens, could you at least tell me who can I ask to do this job for me?

Thanks again, -- Fibonacci 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh right, sorry. Well I know Interiot and Gmaxwell both have access to the database from the toolserver, so either of them should be eable to whip up a script to give you a list of the ones that are fair use if you ask them nicely to help you find out wich of the many images on that page are fair use, if they have the time. -- Sherool (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've modified the copyright status on the image. It should be fine now. — Imp i 07:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You asked me about some pictures i uploaded on my duscussion page, please go there to see my reply. thanks Maglanist

If you'll be as so kind, all these King of Fighters images are clssified as {{promotional}}; if you come across another lacking it I'd appreciate if you could change it to said template. Thanks. - Zero ^Talk 12:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I usually try to tag all my images. This image comes from http://www.nzpost.co.nz and is in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swollib ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Swollib. -- Sherool (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

the image spbeetle.gif was redrawn in pixels, hopefully it wont made any trouble now, thanks for the acknowledge GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi you incorrectly changed the tags on the following images:

• Image:5THAF.png
• Image:8THAFWWII.png
• Image:9THAF.png

from {CopyrightedFreeUse} to {Military-Insignia}... this is wrong for several reasons:

1. these are original works by military-graphics.com
2. these are FORMER (WW-2 era for the most part) logos (not current US-Govt PD)
3. these are NOT public domain (what the new tag suggests), but copyrighted creations of Military-graphics.com who fortunately allows anyone to use them provided a link to the original source is given.

I have rolled back these changes. Please be aware before you make any future changes like these.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Alkivar. -- Sherool (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

This is orphaned and insufficent compared to its sister image currently inserted in the article. It'd be quite feasible to execute a speedy delete on it. - Zero ^Talk 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I know, that's why I tagged it as orphanded, but since you agree that it's useless I guess we can skip the 7 day wait in this case. Deleted. -- Sherool (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry I uploaded better versions long ago and perhaps forgotten to tag the old ones for delete. Iages were used on the folowing articles:

1. Moonlight And Cherry Blossoms
2. Midsummer Night's Dream
3. Burning Hearts On The Road
4. Evergreen Holy Night
5. For The Love Of Goddess

I now have PNG versions in place :). -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you help me with images at Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers I have several images there that Id like to move to commons. Can you assist? See: [4] [5] [6] Note that those edits created 31 orphan images (as images are now in comons). I am making similar moving and would like assistance in deleting the oprhans. I could speedy tag but since I got you over there, I think this is more efficent. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Cool Cat. -- Sherool (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You havent deleted the spanish ones yet :) -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

[7] Italian ranks are now in comons too. those were the last. and are no longer necesary :) -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Cool Cat. -- Sherool (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Sherool, Can you help me in deleting the following images? Image:Froso.jpg; Image:Froso_t.JPG; Image:Chiculate1.JPG; Image:Nansy3.jpg

I've also added the appropriate copyright information to the pictures under my watch list. Please let me know if any additional info needs to be added/deleted. Thank you!! ~ Mallaccaos 2/7/06

Posted reply on User talk:Mallaccaos. -- Sherool (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Sherool, the Image:Froso_1.jpg needs to also be deleted, I must of missed that one with the rest of the ones that needed to be deleted. Thank you.  :) ~ Mallaccaos, 9 February 2006

I thank you for your laborous efforts in changing the copyright templates for the images that lacked them. Indeed, looking back, those were images I had uploaded in my early wikipedian days without full knowledge of policy at the time, and neglected to return and change them after I become more experienced. Please accept this barnstar as my humble thnks. - Zero ^Talk 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Done! Do I have to do the same on Wikibooks ? Renmiri 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Renmiri. -- Sherool (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I was wondering what your stance is about images used on talk pages for critical commentary. For instance, there is a dispute over facts, so a contributor uploads two screenshots illustrating the fact in question. The image is unlikely to be used on an article, but it used for critical commentary on the talk page. Does this constitute fair use?

BTW, the image I'm referring to is Image:Fullmetal Alchemist Don't Forget.jpg I have a backup copy, but I was wondering. — Ambush Commander^{( Talk)} 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Ambush Commander. -- Sherool (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the prompt response. That's probably what's going to end up happening. In the meantime, we should petition User:Roomba to notify users when their images have been tagged. — Ambush Commander^{( Talk)} 02:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmmm...if you are a wiki-gnome, then what would I be considered on the fictional Wiki food chain..? :) - Zero ^Talk 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:MegamanZero.

Hmm... I failed to find a specific description on my wiki-status, but i believe Wiki-Master is technically correct. I make new articles quite often, I transform stubs into fleashed out pages, I create tempaltes for pages, etc. What do you think..? - Zero ^Talk 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:MegamanZero. -- Sherool (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Sherool,

I uploaded this image. Please delete it, as it is not in use anywhere anymore. Can you please have a look at Image:Andreev7 montreal2005.jpg, Image:Gasquet3 montreal2005.jpg and Image:Roddick1 miami2005.jpg as well? I got these from the same site as Henman3 toronto2004.jpg, so please let me know if something is not right about these. Roddick1 miami2005.jpg isn't being used anywhere currently either. Thanks. - Aabha (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Aabha R. -- Sherool (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot. - Aabha (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the Namaste Lodge photo. That was a simple oversight on my part. I put up the release. Image:Namastelodge.jpg --- Andrew Parodi 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry 'bout that one, I made a mistake uploading. I was going to make a smaller PNG version of it for an article, then realized that the point of having a JPG in the article was for demonstration of the format. You can go ahead and delete it.

Image:Canmilhist.jpg is that right? Mike McGregor (Can) 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Mike McGregor (Can). -- Sherool (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help with this image.-- DieWeibeRose 05:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I did email HKPro asking for permission to use their image of the HK BASR. They granted permission, and all they said I have to include was "Courtesy of HKPro". But I'm kinda stuck on what of the copyright tags I should put on it. Because I'm stumped. Thanks Lkegley9 12:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Lkegley9. -- Sherool (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi - I saw your post on User talk:Giano re the above. I must admit that I don't see the point of deleting, moving and restoring simply to record twenty odd typo-correcting edits by a single editor who will be recognised under GFDL as the first author anyway, particularly when he doesn't want credit for those edits and indeed would rather that they were not publicly viewable. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:ALoan. -- Sherool (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi,thanks for doing an effort in tidying up the BWCH article! If by any chance you feel like doing more, please consider using the flag athl iocc template---check out the BWCH article's talk page, and see the source code of the Olympic medalists in biathlon article for examples. Using the template will hopefully reduce the source code size of the BWCH article to something manageable (and loadable in polynomial time...). Unless you or any others volunteer to do the work, I'll do it myself " RSN", using some emacs search-and-replace incantantions. -- Wernher 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Wernher. -- Sherool (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. What was the point of this? Snottygobble 01:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Snottygobble. -- Sherool (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Snottygobble 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've recently found a number of edit summaries on my watchlist starting with "AWB assisted ...".

Starting your edit summary with a link promoting some software makes it slower for me to scan my watchlist. It's also frustrating because I can't even run Windows software on my computer, so it feels a bit like you are spamming my watchlist (no offence intended). Would you mind setting your AWB software so that it doesn't add the promotional link to the edit summary, or at least so it puts it at the end, like "... using AWB"?

If you don't mind, would you also leave a note for the developers whether you agree with me or not, at talk:AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks, Michael  Z. 2006-02-20 05:32 Z

There's not an option for doing so in the software. - Zero ^Talk 08:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply posted on User talk:Mzajac. -- Sherool (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply