This page 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.

Since it is being used for the Cumberland, MD Portal and associated templates, then it is not decorative. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's outside the userspace. It is forbidden to use fair use images outside of articles, according to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Point 9. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for making you duplicate your work on my userbox. I understand the issue now. Best, Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, not many people know about the "no fair use" inside userboxes and stuff. It was heavily mentioned when the boxes were being first used in late 2005, but many of those people have left the project. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete General of the Air Force or at least let us see what the article used to look like. The website that you based your choice on, stating a copyright violation, has actually stolen material from every military ranks article on Wikipedia. The page is less than a few months old, according to thier webcode, but has sections cut and paste from at least seven articles from Wikipedia. I alerted the general administrator's newsgroup of this as well since this could be problem if others reach the same conclusion that you did. - OberRanks 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was already restored before I woke up. Anyways, the problem we are experience is called a "GFDL Violation" and this is pretty much something for the Wikimedia Foundation to settle. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Dreamafter. I would like to request that when you remove an image from a page, that if it is a user sub-page, that you please notify the user, in this case, me. I have already done something to remedy it. Dreamy ^\*/ _!$! 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you removed this image from a user page. I think that was a right move. Moreover, I feel this image has been used inappropriately in other articles. If you have an opinion, could you please note your point of view at the image discussion page Image talk:AntiRussianPoster.jpg‎ We are trying to reach a consensus as to the use of this image and your input will be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Hillock65 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My determination to remove the image from the userpage wasn't a political or POV posititon, it was that of copyright. Fair use images cannot be used on userpages at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, bad news... I cannot dig up any new info on the topic. Somehow Lithuanians don't seem to like their song :) Renata 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That stinks. Anyways, I am thinking we can add the national law from 1999 in the article and see what happens after that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, before making such changes you should at least ask the wikiproject members if they like your image of the colombian seal. In my opinion the condor looks VERY awkward!! thanks for your contributions but if you would like to propose a new seal please try to fix the animal. -- F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The last seal used by some of the project was a copyright violation, so I thought the SVG would have been the best fit. Well, what is exactly wrong with the condor? Is the color wrong? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to find out why you removed the pictures from the sections of the food portal.-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issues. Images licensed as fair use cannot be used outside of articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten all about checking that. I just didn't know that was why you did that without a comment made when you removed them. I'm the person who pretty much updates that portal each month.-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Scout. I got the shapshot you deleted from Lawrence Ball, and had his permission to post it. How do I add his permission to the photo so it doesn't get deleted? Pkeets 12:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Second the permission request to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. They will help you sort it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what you've written doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify. Are you saying I should email a copy of Ball's permission to that email address? Pkeets 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your repeated removal of data from the article.

By what standard are you determining a difference between decoration and valid illustration?

Is your standard one which is supported in Wikipedia policy? If so please point it out.

I take it that you will now be embarking on a single-handed vigilante approach to all similar articles. If not then, pray, why not? -- JohnArmagh 21:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am being selective in the articles. Anyways, the policy to read is WP:NFCC. Anyways, it is a list of state leaders. If they want to see the pictures of the leaders, then they can go to their article. If there are public domain photos you can find of the leaders, then find them, upload them and put them on the list. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And I found, or corrected, public domain photographs of both leaders. See how easy that was? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is easy if one is only doing the odd one-or-two. Clearly it takes a heck of a time to investigate the existence and status of images for every statesman (especially as many lists have more than the two in this particular one), the moreso when one spends time considering which is the correct tag to use for a particular image (which I am grateful that you have clarified in this instance - though I suspect others may have a different take). And yes, if one wanted to see the image of a leader then one could go to that biographical article (and there find out whether there was an image included in the article or not). However if one wanted to see which of the leaders had images without going to each-and-every article one-by-one then the ideal place to see this information would be on the list of them. -- JohnArmagh 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're article isn't the first nor the last me and others will hit for fair use issues. Anyways, a bit hint on cropping photos, it is easier to just stick with the license that the original, unedited, photo was put under. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a thumbnail of A Thousand Monkeys.png in a table in my sandbox. You deleted it and I was wondering why. It would seem, if it were a fair use/license issue that you would have addressed the source image and not my sandbox. Anyway, I was just curious. Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a fair use issue, but for a different reason. Fair use images cannot be used outside of articles, so that is why I removed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you had deleted Level Platforms. I assume that was because it had been orphaned. If you could reinstate it I would be happy to include multiple links to related articles. Please advise. Thanks!

It's up now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is supposed to respect intellectual property, it seems rather contradictory to leave the link to a pirated version of "Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead", but remove the link to a petition trying to get the album reissued legally. Rodparkes 06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been going after some of the petition sites, since I was notified we were getting a lot of them. I nuked the youtube and mp3 site list. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed an image from my userpage? I wasn't doing anything wrong was I? andrewrox424 ^Bleep 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the screenshot since it was licensed under fair use. In our fair use policy, we cannot host fair use images on your userpage. So, please, remove the FEAR screenshots from your userpage before I or others do it. Consider this a learning experience, I sucked at fair use when I joined the site. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this guy was already banned before the discussion ... unless current practice is to assume that if you're indefblocked and have an LTA section or page, you're banned. In any case, I think the discussion was appropriate in order to justify unlimited Checkuser requests, as well as support delete/revert-on-sight of all contribs and block-on-sight of all socks.

I'm in admin coaching at present ... I've always been of the mind that in most cases, community bans should be discussed unless there's a compelling reason not to do so (i.e., outing someone's personal information). Blueboy 96 11:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I was getting at; he was already blocked in January of 2007, then he went with the socks. You don't need our permission to kill blatant sockpuppets, just do it. There is no formal method to confirm community bans; if they are blocked and not unblocked by anyone, they are effectively banned. Usually, the only time about a community ban is discussed about a blocked user is for unblocking purposes only. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

At Template_talk:SOHO you made the following offer: "non-commercial/educational use only images were banned in May 2005 with an email sent to a mailing list by Jimbo Wales. I can provide more details, if needed". I accept. Please support your claim that a license with these properties is prohibited:

"The use of SOHO images or data for
1: public education efforts
and 2: non-commercial purposes
is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization"

1: Anyone, commercial or non-commercial, educational institution or not, can use it anywhere for any use that educates the public. This includes every republisher of Wikipedia articles.
2: In addition any non-comercial use is also allowed, even if it's not for public education.

You appear to be confusing "educational" with "public education". Educational is restricted to educational institutions like schools and universities and limiting use to schools isn't acceptable because we have commercial reusers. Public education is available to anyone anywhere, commercial or not, and is not what Jimbo was writing about.

Once you've reviewed the discussions kindly recant on the talk page. Thanks!

It's still not public domain (and not the legal meaning fair use either) - we don't actually have any other license tag that fits this broad but not unlimited reuse. Jamesday 08:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The email Jimbo wrote about these images is at [1], which is also linked on my front page. Anyways, the second issue is what hurts us; we cannot use images that are non-commercial use only. That means we cannot use them on any CD's Wikipedia might release in the future for fund raising efforts, we cannot allow our mirrors to copy the images. Jimbo also said in that email that "educational use only" is also not allowed, due to the reasons I cite now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those reasons applies in this case. The SOHO images are not for only non-commercial use. That is the second of the two licenses and in a dual license situation you are free to use either license. You appear to be missing the first license: any use that educates the public, without any restriction on whether it's commercial or in an educational institution or not. That license is certainly compatible with any CD of articles that the Wikimedia Foundation may grant a license to use the trademark Wikipedia. Kindly try again, this time addressing the restrictions of this license, not educational institution only or non-commercial only licenses - we agree on those. Jamesday 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at [ http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html now and I see the following "The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization." The second part of that sentence says the images are for non-commercial use. That is not compatible with us anymore and this is the kind of license Jimbo says it is not acceptable anymore. The license is still going to point to the speedy delete tag and we will still reject the images from ESA (we rejected plenty of these images). I was also pointed to Wikipedia:10_things_you_did_not_know_about_images_on_Wikipedia, which explains why we don't accept the non-commercial only images if Jimbo's email sounds a bit confusing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's progress. Now notice that it says "for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes" and not "for non-commercial public education efforts" or "for non-commercial education" Jamesday 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon if I interject. Please remember, when you're uploading to Wikipedia, you're also sending that same file to all our mirror sites. Many of those sites are commercial. By doing so, you are violating the terms of that license. Compatible licenses should include the right to use commercially as well as the right to make derivatives. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

His argument is that because the mirrors are still educational they are permitted even if they are commercial. Even without considering the validity of the argument itself, it's easy for us to reject because we require that the content on our site be freely available for derivatives which have no significant educational value. -- Gmaxwell 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not quite my argument. I don't support the use of licenses for use only in educational institutions, which is what an "educational" license normally means and is what Jimbo was writing about in that email. The no significant public education value derivative works argument is potentially one I will agree with, but how about first getting agreement that the license does allow anyone to use the works for any use that educates the public and is not the usual "educational" license that is restricted to educational institutions only? Your original comment in the template discussion page pointed to Jimbo's email about educational institution licenses and that's why I first came here, because this one doesn't have that restriction. Jamesday

Kindly ignore the non-commercial license they grant. It's not acceptable, so it's not significant for this discussion. Jamesday 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Jamesday! Welcome back around, I'm glad to see you again but sad to have to step in to disagree with you... But the ESA images do not meet the standards we've been using for free images for a long time (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy for an example set of standards). It's not enough to merely permit 'educational' and 'non-commercial' use. In short, We expect free images on the projects to be usable without discrimination against some fields of endeavor (excepting perhaps those restrictions required to keep the works free (copyleft) or provide a basic ethical treatment of authors (attribution)). ESA's licensing terms are not a new issue for us, and I don't see anything that would change the longstanding position that the images are problematic in your argument above. -- Gmaxwell 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to read you again. :) The license from the ESA is not an educational license - educational here having the same meaning Jimbo was using in the email Zscout370 referenced: restricted to use by educational institutions. That's unacceptable, for obvious reasons: most reusers aren't educational institutions.

The potentially interesting license for us is the one for any use that educates the public, without restriction to commercial or non-commercial or educational institution use. That's not a free license but it may be compatible with the EDP here and the Foundation's purpose. Or not - but lets at least accurately describe the license so we don't misrepresent it.

For the moment I'm trying to get people to notice just what the ESA license actually grants. Usually they do what is happening here, focusing only on education (and mistreating it as an educational institution only license and pointing to Jimbo's email about those, when it's actually for anyone) or non-commercial (and mistreating it a a non-commercial only license, instead of a dual license) - Kylu's interjection is a perfect example of the latter error. Can then move on to whether any use that educates the public is compatible with the Foundation's objectives and suitable under an EDP policy. That is: lets focus on getting its properties accurately described, then move on from there. Jamesday 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is why we are not allowing the license: people who are reusing our content must be able to use it for educational and commercial purpose (not just the former). If you are asking to allow that license to be restored, I am not going to restore it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From: Gfdl#Commercial_redistribution

The GFDL requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially" and therefore is incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use. Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work. However, incorporating such restricted material may be fair use under United States copyright law and does not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses. One example of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody.

Using the ESA license would relegate it to Fair Use material. Fair Use, however, is not a license. It's both an admission of infringement and a defense against the same. ~Kylu ( u| t) 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for leaving a message about the image above. I am planning to write to the original owner of the image. I was wondering if we had a page somewhere that I could direct him to understand his/her choices? It would make it easier for me to ask him what his choice was? -- Mayuresh 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The acceptable choices are at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#List_of_image_copyright_tags. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was only going on the precedent of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and some other countries in Eastern Europe. While I think the flag works since Russia had already adopted the white-blue-red flag by the time The Prayer of Russians came into use and only changed it during the Soviet period, which is clearly labelled in the template, I agree that it could be put at the bottom of the articles. Perhaps a layout similar to Template:Anthems of the Soviet Republics is in order? If you agree, I'll try to recreate the template in that image.

Also, this is slightly off-topic, but I'm assuming you're the same person as the zscout370 on NationalAnthems.us? I recently registered there as "Big Brother". Just some trivia. -- Keith Lehwald 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Anthems of the Soviet Republics is a good format to use. And yes, I am zscout370 on the National Anthems forums. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All right then. I'll get to work on the new version of the template straightaway, and I'll be sure to notify you when I've finished. -- Keith Lehwald 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you need anything, let me know. Also, if there are anthem articles lacking in recordings, I can see if I can dig up a few. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The template is finished now; have a look at it. I've already moved it to the bottom on all the relevant articles. I've also replaced the flag with the coat of arms, since I had forgotten about the "coat of arms" flag used from 1858 to 1883. I figure the double-headed eagle and St. George slaying the dragon on the coat are more universal Russian symbols. As for other anthem articles, I know I've seen quite a few without recordings, but that's easily rectified considering how many recordings are available on the National Anthems forums. (I've amassed a pretty massive personal collection myself from that website, among others. Granted, it's nowhere near that of Reinhard Popp, but it's still massive by my standards.) However, are you talking about linking to recordings in external links, or are you talking about uploading public-domain recordings to Wikimedia? Thanks again for everything, and be sure to give me your opinion on the new (and hopefully improved) version of the template! -- Keith Lehwald 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The template looks very good, the choice of image is very good. I have a massive recording collection myself. As for the recordings, the US Navy Anthem's database is public domain for us to use (I have an email from their office), no Reinhard recordings. I know some asked for recordings, but if there is one missing, let me know and I can convert the recordings (or teach you how). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean convert the recordings to OGG, right? If so, I can do that too, since I have Audacity. In that case, I could check the articles for all of the anthems and upload the US Navy Band recordings in OGG format for those that don't have recordings. (Of course, this doesn't apply for anthems like North Korea's or Iran's, since the US Navy Band never recorded those.) We could even make it a collaborative effort if you like. -- Keith Lehwald 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes things a lot easier. I am not sure what I have done already, but I can also ask for a few folks who wish to help. What I usually do is the name of the anthem_instrumental.ogg, like what I have done at Kimi ga Yo. We can do what we can and if we miss a few, I have some other ideas. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll start working on that right away, beginning with Saudi Arabia (just because it was the first one I came across). Speaking of anthem recordings, though, I have one question related to the National Anthems forums: I have some recordings from the souvenir CDs of the last two Royal Nova Scotia International Tattoos. I've scoured the CD cases, and I can't find any copyright information listed. The performers at the Tattoo are also unpaid volunteers (or at least the choir is). Would it be safe to assume then that I could upload those recordings to the forums, or perhaps even Wikipedia? -- Keith Lehwald 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No for Wikipedia, since we need to have a copyright statement. As for the forum, ask ztc about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you very much! (And, incidentally, Saudi Arabia is done. I think I have the hang of the process now.) -- Keith Lehwald 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I done many recordings, if you need an example, just use Kimi Ga Yo, or My Belarusy as a guide. Glad you're here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Z, I'm confused here. I checked all the copyrights on the images for the Image:Irishpeople3.jpg collage, and was sure they checked out. In your deletion summary you said it contained "2 blatant copyvios". Could you please tell me which images were copyvios so I can correct the problem and create a collage that is licensed suitably (though, I swear, I thought that one was kosher). Thanks! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 16:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The photograph from the IMF had a false license; their works are all rights reserved [2]. Second, the Polish President's license is not being used at this time; it is considered to be unfree on the Wikimedia Commons, but no one has deleted the images yet because of emails/admin wheelwars. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 23:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why deleted the image I uploaded? I made a mistake and uploaded it twice, so only one should have been deleted. The source I got it from says the picture are free of copyright. Hamada2 20:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your message, thanks. But why does the website say they are free? Hamada2 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Free for non-commercial, educational use. In order to be free, for our purposes, we have to accept them for commercial reuse without any restrictions on modification. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this site with pictures that say "royalty-free" [3]. I don't find other information about the copyright. Could you tell me if these are eligible for use on Wikipedia? Hamada2 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, people purchase images from the website and many of the people who submit photos there claim "all rights reserved" for images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete cases from the board. When the discussion ends, cases are closed and archived. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we don't want to archive. There are sometimes when the case is very obvious and we don't want to wait for a bot to do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to delete other people's comments. Tony Sidaway is engaging in mass deletion. It looks like he's going for a WP:POINT block. Be careful not to get caught in the crossfire. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I support Tony's action. Plus, templating him wasn't the best move in the world. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He's being disruptive and I am hoping he will stop. We all know that this page was nominated for AfD and there was a heated debate. Tony shouldn't try to do an out of process deletion of the board. Nobody is above the rules, not even Tony. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then people should have looked at the last AFD and see what the closer called for. Example, CSN doesn't need to be the place to reconfirm old blocks. Just let the old blocks stand. That should be put on top of the page; better yet, I am doing it now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds helpful. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. Now, this means while the one I removed might/might not stay on that page for long, but just trying to address some of the concerns of the MFD. I can easily tell you that if the reforms from the last MFD doesn't happen, someone will be bound to kill that page once and for all. I won;t do it (my BOLD meter has run dry), but I can pretty much assure you one will. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the reforms need to be undertaken, and I wish that Arbcom would look at this board and either bless it or tell it to go away. As for deletions, I've added a note to the header asking not to delete cases. Unworthy cases should be summarily closed and archived. This provides a searchable record that could be useful later on. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As in wait for the bot to archive or just archive it ourselves? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think any admin can speedy close obvious non-cases with {{ Discussion top}} and {{ Discussion bottom}} and let the bot to archive it. That way people have a chance to see that the case was closed, and why. You can ask User:Navou about the procedure for archiving. He's doing most of that work. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

May be interesting for you: official response for Freedom Day. -- EugeneZelenko 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting photos; I think I could use some of the photographs for the BRSM article, since a lot of these concerts were produced by them. I notice the national library in the background. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've decided to go ahead and add some structure to our informal mini-project of getting recordings on every anthem article. It's an unofficial project I call ALOREAA, meaning At-Least-One-Recording-on-Every-Anthem-Article. On that project page, I've set up a list of all countries that have not been confirmed to have recordings on Wikipedia or Wikimedia linked to from their anthem articles. (The list is a modified fork of the list of national anthems.) Please take a look at what I've set up, since I think it will help both of us (not to mention anyone else who wants to help) greatly. I'm also keeping it in my userspace to avoid what happened to WikiProject National anthems. (You're not still running that out of your userspace, are you?)

By the way, I've also uploaded every US Navy Band recording up to and including Bolivia that hadn't been uploaded yet (which turned out to be most of them), as well as the People's Republic of China, the former anthem of Kazakhstan (the US Navy Band site didn't get updated with the new one yet), as well as the aforementioned Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, anthems were unavailable for Afghanistan, Andorra, and Bhutan. Just thought I'd give you an update. -- Keith Lehwald 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know there was a national anthems Wikiproject, but I am not sure where it went. There are some other members on the forum who are on Wikipedia, but I cannot access the list now because the forums are down (yet again). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're good at stubifying articles. Would you consider stubifying the Leadership article, the article has become so bad right now and so low quality and everyone is abusing it. Please consider it. Thanks! Pm master 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for stubifying the Leadership article. Much appreciated. Pm master 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pm master ( talk • contribs).

User:Radiant has posted a request for user:Zen-master to be rebanned. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Zen-master. I note that you were responsible for unblocking ZM's account. If you have anything to add I'm sure it would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, he screwed up again. Anyways, since I have classes to deal with, I will just post my reasoning here. It was over a year since the last sanctions were placed over the user by ArbCom; he came on IRC to be unblocked and resume editing. I checked to make sure the restrictions were done and I decided to unblock if he straightens himself out and be civil. It seems like that he hasn't; go ahead and tell Radiant to block him indefinitely, since I won't be here to do it myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted the article on Miles Levin with the note that "CNN tends to report a lot of people who have diseases; even ESPN does it." I agree with that, but I think the blog that Miles wrote and the number of people who read it (thousands, internationally) probably do make him notable for this context.

I did not write or see the earlier article and only saw the note in the log when I went to see what, if anything, had been entered. I did write most of the article for WikiNews Miles Levin - Teen Blogger Dies before 19th Birthday. Would you please take a look at that and the associated talk page? Then consider undeleting the article, and I'll use it as a starting point. The obit on WikiNews really just reports his death, but after the discussion there, I think it would make sense to put an article on his life, writings and their inpact in an article on Wikipedia.

Please let me know what you think. CocoaZen 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than blogging about his disease and getting press for it, I just do not believe Mr. Levin stands out from the rest of the other bloggers. Sad to say, but bloggers like him are a dime a dozen, since people use the blog world to share about their disease. However, what I am going to do is send other administrators to review the deletion and whatever course of action they take, I will support. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing WP:NOTE and explaining why you feel that, as an individual, he merits inclusion in an encyclopedia as opposed to merely being a current event (which would rightly belong on a news site such as you had already done?) ~Kylu ( u| t) 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article when it was deleted gave no credible assertion of notability. The mention on CNN seems nothing more than a passing human-interest note. It would be more reasonable to mention Levin in an article on cancer victims. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the picture off the userbox of mine? -- Destructo ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright reasons. In our policy on fair use images, they cannot be used in userboxes or anywhere outside of articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Why did you remove two photographs from the Ronald Reagan page? I know they were fair use, and copyrighted, but they fell under the WP:FU guidelines and fair use rationales were provided on both images. The first, Image:REAGAN1996 is very rare, because Reagan rarley had photos taken of him while he had Alzheimer's. The second, Image:REAGANSKISS2000 is one of, if not the, last pics taken of Reagan before his Alzheimer's took a turn for the worst. These pics were properly cited and licensed so I'm not sure why they were removed. It also extremely hard to find free pics of Reagan in his post-presidential years (beleive me - I've tried), so this was all we had. Please get back to me. Happyme22 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There were concerns, by others, about the image licenses. Plus, you mentioned the pictures were purchased from said agencies. The pictures were not purchased; I was able to find the same pictures, same sizes and formatting. Second, even if they were purchases, US Fair Use law will prevent us from using it. If we purchase the photo, then put it up for people to download for free, we are undercutting the power of the AP and Time to sell their photos to others. I do understand finding photos of him now are hard pressed, but lying about the photographs in the methods I showed above, me and others could not stand at all, hence the deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You told me previously that the fair use policy on images states that they can not be used outside of the article space. User:Bmedley Sutler has several images, both on his user page and his talk page. Could you take a look and let me know what you think? Ursasapien (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked now and whatever fair use was there, I cannot see it now or it has been removed. But I will see if my eyes are sharper at noonish tomorrow. But, if I can be honest, his talk page is a little bit inflamatory. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason which is not clearly stated, the *entire* Kola Boof page has been deleted and protected to prevent future edits. Why would this happen, and how can I, as a wikipedia user, reverse this, or vote on its reversal? Thanks. Brainvoyager 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (PS, I accidentally put this in your third page of archives before, whoops)

We got OTRS email messages about the article and the contents in them and has been deleted by others before who use the same OTRS system. Since it is an OTRS action, it cannot be voted for creation, but I will keep this article in mind and ask someone else to review this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove all the info I added to the South Dakota flag article? I think taking all of the relevant info out of the article made it much less informative. Aren't we supposed to help stubs? ( MandyBarberio 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

The article is about the state flag, so having a picture of the state seal and information about the seal is not needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ considering the seal is part of the flag. You can't really describe anything about the flag without describing the seal in the middle. < MandyBarberio 18:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>

Thank you for your kind words. I would rather face the scrutiny of editors wondering why I replaced the image (and let them readd it under the circumstances) then stand idly by and see that potential problem escalate when lawyers look at Wikipedia. I wasn't graceful with the image moving, but I tried :) Ah, I have a grandfather and uncle who fought in wars, so the feeling is mutual there. Cheers! — Moe ε 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at the table I created for national anthems and tell me what you think. If you recall, (a long time ago), the idea was to split national anthems versus 'popular songs'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_national_anthems#Proposed_new_table FFMG 12:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zach. Since you're a contributor to FOTW, would you mind posting a follow-up concerning the bottom image on [4]. The Danish Resistance never used a flag of its own, so the image is a hoax. not contemporary. Good design though :) Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be ... I just stumbled over this image from a museum. I've never heard about the Resistance using any flags during the skirmishes around 5 May 1945, so the flag hasn't seen "live" action. It is not officially recognized and it must have been created at some later date. Perhaps by veterans or as a pseudo-regimental banner? Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea when the flag existed and most follow ups by Danish nationals are getting nowhere. Oddly enough, I was the one who did the image you mentioned in this post. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FOTW isn't very well known in Denmark. Both because of the topic and because it is an English-language website. Come to think of it, I might have seen a banner like that on the telly from a 4 May (Liberation of Denmark) celebration. Trouble is that I've no clue when such a thing was designed. I've never actually attended a 4 May service as they're always held around 8 PM, and the date clashes with a family birthday. My grandfather might have known but he never mentioned the existence of any other insignia save the cloth armlet. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Yahoo News photo was the first I seen it, so has others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I did't find the alternative Bristol CoA image - it's now being used on various pages supported by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bristol & we obviously missed that one.— Rod ^talk 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Anyways, I am not sure what I am going to do with the image on the Bristol article, but sooner or later, the images from the Russian website might need to go (or stay, depending on what the Commons does). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made no progress in finding info on how to use the photos Lawrence Ball sent to me, and which you deleted. Please provide a clear and detailed explanation on how to upload them with the permission. Pkeets 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Email him and make sure he allows the images under these following requirements. Then once you get that said permission and the license he wants at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators, email it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org and they will take it from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you delete your beautiful logo you'd worked so hard on, rather than using it in your article? Chris 03:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Because I found free images for said article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please include the publishers/photographers name in Image:BSRM Members Minsk.jpg? This is necessary under the chosen license. -- jergen 08:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All I know is the username of the photographer, I hope that is enough. Added that in; the publisher and url source is already listed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But maybe referring to someone as an 'ungrateful shitcock' might just be a little excessive?

Maybe? HalfShadow 03:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but got the point across. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't have actually made that yourself, could you have? That's some awesome work, if you did. But, FYI, it has been removed from Canada by a user—it may look better with the black borders thinned so there is less black in the scaled-down version. Lexicon (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really did make it—and man, that is some piece of work—I think there is a way to do gradients and the like in SVGs, so with more work (and I'm sure it really will be a lot more work), the actual gold-effect of the lions and the shine of the blue ribbon could be added. Oh, and some gray shading in the unicorn. Again, f'in awesome work. Lexicon (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, I just noticed that you haven't used stroke on anything, just layered things on black, so it would be a bit more of a major edit to reduce the visible black. There really are some parts where the black does need to be reduced to make it look right (or perhaps not "right", but "better") in particular the English and Scottish lions on the crest. How long did it take you to do this? Was it a full-time job? Lexicon (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It took a really long time to do it, but I am willing to fix it up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you worked off a larger original raster version than that available on Wikipedia. If you could provide me with this image I may be able to help some. Lexicon (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I got it almost done of what you wanted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jeff3000 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Jeff3000 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove Image:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg from Portal:Environment/Selected picture/1? -- Alan Liefting talk 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is licensed as fair use, so it means it cannot be displayed in portals, userpages or anywhere else, except for articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What "licensing" issues prevent the North Star from being used on the NDRFC page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmeister ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is licensed as fair use. Fair use icons are not allowed, according to WP:NFCC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=PeerGuardian&diff=132048331&oldid=131742637

Great going on the above edit, instead of slapping an unsourced temp on the page, you just removed info that was 98% accurate. I know what your retort will be: WP guidelines allow unsourced information to be removed. Hell if that rule really would be enforced all the time, wiki would be impotent/useless. Walkingwithyourwhiskey 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because most of the community is thinking quantity, not quality. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Heya, Any reason you wanted to change the flag of bougainville I created back to the original that was there before? I spent a lot of time on dimensions and colours. Also, you changed the flag in my image gallery! aliasd· U· T 23:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the name of the author isn't supposed to go in the file name itself. Of course, you should be able to say you did the image, but the file name is not the place to do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I really just used that to differentiate the two files. Is this a policy? aliasd· U· T 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the point is, none of my other numerous image contributions have my username in the title, so obviously I am not intending to soapbox here. aliasd· U· T 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you weren't trying to do it on purpose at all, since I know about the other file. Anyways, what you need to do the next time is the following: replace the old file and just change the page to say you were the author (and keep the license the same or make it more freer). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually I try and avoid uploading media over other people's work. 00:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that is something you wish to avoid, but this is what wikipedians normally do. I do it a lot myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Nova_Scotia.svg What vandalism issues? The flag you have added to the commons is (C) the province and is an original work, not a derivative of Jean-Pierre DeMailly. His copyright does not apply to this image, and as such, does it even belong on wikicommons? I would like to keep the proper, copyrighted photo on wikipedia with notices similar to those found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg . I was going to add it back, but I don't want it taken down again. What was the issue in the first place?

The message I saw in the deleted history had statements to where no flag or coat of arms should be on the Commons, so that is what caused me to think vandalism. We have all of the other Canadian provincial and territory flags on the Commons. If you want to get technical, while the flag is under some kind of protection law, it's copyright status has expired. It was confirmed in 1929, so add 50 years to that and any copyright status was gone after 1980. Hell, the Canadian flag is not out of Crown Copyright yet for several more years, but somehow, we are still allowed to keep it on the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the copyright being expired. In 1929 the flag looked like this http://www.gov.ns.ca/cmns/images/publicflags/oldflag.jpg . The current version came into use much later. In any event, the SVG being used here was made by me from official sources, and has nothing to do with Jean-Pierre DeMailly, so the copyright statement is incorrect. If you want to use Jean-Pierre's version on Wikicommons go ahead, but don't use the one I provided and say there is no copyright.-- Strategability 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the information on the Commons; can you tell me when the ratio officially changed from 2:3 to 1:2? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look this up in the morning. It went to 2:1 and lost the blue claws on the lion at the same time, I think. That might be the same time they chose to go with Pantone colours. http://www.gov.ns.ca/cmns/flagspublic.asp .-- Strategability 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Switch it to the previous image I did. Anyways, it listed another user as the uploader of the Government version saying it was his modifications. Are you saying you are employed with the NS Government? If so, let's take it to email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Send me your address.

zscout370 at hotmail dot com. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that you've protected templates like Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners because logos have been added. I know why it's not fair use to insert the standard Boeing logo in all the infoboxes for Boeing planes; but why wouldn't it be ok to for instance use the Eurofighter Typhoon logo solely in the userbox of the Eurofighter Typhoon? Thats the same as to place a company's logo in the infobox of the company. - S. Solberg J. 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That works. The reason why I protected that specific infobox was that it was a template used on all sorts of articles and the image was encoded in the template itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism

Dear User:Zscout370,

The problem I have is with the above article: Jewish Bolshevism. Every scholar I've read regarding the relation between Jews and Bolshevism says that it was White Russians who claimed that Bolshevism was invented/created by Jews. And I do not think anyone who speaks English ever confuses this usage with people of Belarus. When English speakers think of the latter they say Belarus - they never say "White Russians." Best regards, -- Ludvikus 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded at the Belarus talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello;

I noticed that this Wikipedia article was put up for deletion. I put it on after seeing the Canadian Duality Flag has an article about it and thought it a similarly informative description of an unofficial Canadian flag from List of Canadian flags. I've had correspondence with the Canadian Ministry of Heritage about this flag. I created the computer image and it is a rough estimation but at least gives an idea of what the flag looks like. Likemike1 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have books from Heritage Canada and "I Stand For Canada" and this flag is not listed. The only time the maple leaf flag had more than 11 points was a 13 (or 15 point) design when the flag was first adopted. There is a photo of it in Archives Canada. I have drawn the flag and it is on Wikipedia now. Yes, I did help shape the Duality flag article, but unlike the Heritage flag, the Duality flag exists and been covered in many sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had correspondence with the creator of the Duality flag Hank Gigandet on a few occasions, and I'm glad to see that there is an article about it here on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what is needed to prevent the deletion of the Canadian Vintage Flag article here. You mentioned you helped out on the Duality flag article, could you help out with this one? I can assure you the flag is no hoax and that the Canadian Ministry of Heritage has considered it, Executive Correspondence Minister B. Funes and Heritage Minister Beverly Oda being well aware of it.

I also had found and posted an image of the Canadian Coat of Arms flag which I have noticed you have some interest in. I like the version of the Coat of Arms that you seem to have helped out designing here on Wikipedia. Rather than the version I downloaded from the FOTW website, could you possibly quickly make a version of it for the list of Canadian flags article? If not, could we leave the FOTW image on the article? I think an image of the flag would be appropriate and you seem to have some skill in this area.

I have been interested in and studied Canadian flags thoroughly for over 20 years now and have read countless books and articles including the one you have mentioned. If you are interested in helping out with the Canadian Vintage Leaf Flag in particular, I would appreciate the help in improving the article here on Wikipedia. Likemike1 20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see any proof the Heritage flag existed. I could ask Canadian Heritage, but my last emails to that office went unanswered. I can try other sources, but I still believe that there was no 32-point maple leaf flag (in the format of the current national flag). Sure, the leaf is used in the logo of Hockey Canada (I seen their uniforms in Turin and Salt Lake City) and there was a flag in 1964 or 1965 that had either 13 or 15 points on it (before changed to the 11 point flag we know today). In order to prevent the article from being deleted, provide proof that we can see that the flag existed. As for the FOTW images, we cannot use them on Wikipedia at all. They requested me to keep their images from Wikipedia unless other permission is granted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Would getting a picture of the flag downloaded onto Wikipedia/ Canadian Vintage Leaf flag suffice to prevent deletion of the article? Likemike1 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, since articles with pictures are deleted all of the time. Plus, Wikipedia doesn't keep every single flag variant of any flag. Example, we haven't and we won't have an article on the Canadian flag with a marijuana plant replacing the maple leaf. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done to prevent deletion then? You mentioned "The "not official flag" doesn't bother me at all, since we have articles on non-official flags related to Canada and other countries. However, the hoax part does." The Vintage Leaf is definitely a more prominent and well known symbol than the Duality Flag, of which thankfully there is an article. Is there perhaps some alteration that could be made showing the Vintage Leaf in all places where it exists? The Vintage Leaf flag being one such place, but in addition I've seen it used alone (and not as a Hockey Canada logo) on toques, shirts, Mike Weir's golf cap clothing line, and of course Uniforms. It would take sometime, but I could probably find (or take) pictures of each one, including the actual flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemike1 ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, the AFD is in favor of deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the image is not appearing description page, nor is it appearing on my userpage where I have inserted it. Since you have experience with this image, could you please take a look? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is displaying fine on my end, but I have noticed (and others told me on IRC) about image display issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Still no good for me and I've bypassed the cache, but it's no big deal. Thanks! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 09:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a big deal, since I know others are facing it. You're welcome to post this on the Village Pump since they could give you a better idea of what to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted Joseph Robert Goeke some time ago, without any warning or notification having been put in place. Why? Judges of the United States Tax Court, being direct long term appointees of U.S. President of the United States, are inherently notable. I can't think of any other reason why deletion would be in order here. bd2412 T 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability wasn't my reason of deletion at all. If you saw my deletion reason, it was related to Wikipedia's OTRS email communication. I cannot say who sent the email, but there was content in the history that was asked to be deleted. It related to Libel and other BLP issues. In the near future, if there is a deletion summary based on the OTRS system with the ticket number, please contact me first before doing any undeletion at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that Wikipedia had an OTRS system. I find the existence of a system which allows for deletion of articles with no process and no easily accessible record to be very troubling. If there was no notability issue, why did you not restore the article itself, and the non-controversial parts of the edit history? bd2412 T 07:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm not looking for an argument. I'll take care not to undelete OTRS deletions. Please take care to restore such articles to the extent that they are non-problematic. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you backed down, but please don't leave here with a bad taste in your mouth. Anyone with OTRS access can review the ticket and make up their own mind as to if this was a justified deletion, and disagree if necessary. I really see no problem with this, and I think OTRS is an important part of the Wikimedia machine, some things just can't always be communicated directly on a talk page (like, for instance, an email containing permission to use an image from the copyright holder). At the very least you should be able to look at the deleted revision history and guess where the problem is. aliasd· U· T 08:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no harm done - in the end, the bathwater's been thrown out, but the baby has been saved. Cheers again! bd2412 T 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say much about what the deletion is for, other than just the ticket number. But, for future reference, I can assist you better on OTRS actions via email (since it is not an open communication system that gets chached by Google). But if you have any more questions, please let me know by email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

True The current text at Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a copy-and-paste job (in violation of Wikipedia guidelines); I'm reverting back to the redirect. The issue has been brought up for discussion of a move at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara several times with no consensus to move, so some editors see fit to keep on reverting to the copy-and-paste version. You're right; it should stop. If you want to intervene in this, I would appreciate it. User:FayssalF has volunteered to give assistance, but it's been slow going, and apparently, he's been in a car wreck. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 06:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I was at the Commons that helped to stop the image rename. Plus, if it is a GFDL violation, I will see what steps we can take. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'd just like to say thank you for that barnstar you gave me six months ago. Unfortunately, for various reasons, I've not been able to edit Wikipedia for some time and I only just logged in. I see you properly started Portal:Belarus, good work.-- Rudjek 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been a slow going, but I am happy with the portal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly believe that we should build a new article from scratch, since whatever copy and paste move has been done is a violation of our policies. I will write it again, but that will require another deletion. Is this acceptable? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zscout370,

• In fact I don't understand your concern.
• If you build a new article, koavf will certainly come, put all his Polisario POV or move to his Polisario versions of Western Sahara.
• But up to you. I am with you as long as the action makes sure Western Sahara is not mixed-up/confused/subtituted with the "Sahrawi Republic" and shows that they are two separate things.

Thanks - wikima 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can deal with the POV issues; if we write on just the flag and nothing else, the article will be fine. If there is any errors, I can correct them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It looks good to me
• And yes, the article should be about the flag. All other stuff can be linked.

Thanks - wikima 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am doing some cleanup of flag images and I noticed this one from you. Since it is not used anymore, is there any objections from you if I delete the image? Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the image is orphaned and there is no objections of deleting the image. You can delete it if you want to. Hope your cleanup be successful. -- Jackl 04:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. You bagged JEWS IN THE OVEN ( talk · contribs) just now; looks like they're going to continue playing with their talk page. Maybe a protection would be in order on that? Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone already got to it before I saw this message. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you made this null edit to my userpage while trying to remove an image. I'm assuming this was automatic, and if that's the case, something might be going wrong because it didn't remove any image. Just thought you might like to know. Milto LOL pia 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what happened was that when I was removing a "non-free image" placeholder, it caused that edit. Yeah, it was an automatic edit. Sorry about that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ain't no problem, I just wanted to make sure I didn't have any illegal images in my userpage :-) I have the sandbox trancsluded in my userpage so maybe it was something in there wot triggered it. Milto LOL pia 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The list I am going off of is at Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. Your userpage is fine now, image wise. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image from there because fair use images are not allowed inside of templates. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK...I reformatted the template Template: County Seats of Maryland. The form of original template that included the image was copied from others with the same style that exist all over Wikipedia. Thanks. → Lwalt ^{♦  talk} 22:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the message about the two million articles on Wikipedia. User that agree with this can put in their user page, including me.-- Tasco 0 01:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am honored you wish to include the message. I'll ask about it and once it is made, I will let you know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an sharp eye out for any further changes. -- Moreau36 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon please! :) -- Cat ^chi? 11:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

hey,<

I can certainly e-mail you the photos i took....just message me with your addy. [User:Dowew]

Hello, i noticed you tagged Monster (song) with "improper use of copyrighted images" tag, however this article only has 5 images, 3 of them being album art, and two video shots, both of these shots are important not just for the shot but for the band, as it shows (in the second video shot) the logo differences and name differences in the UK and USA which i feel you should have looked at probaly before taking the image, so i would appreciate, unless you have another reason for tagging the image that you remove the tag. thank you ( LemonLemonLemons 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Hate to break your heart, but the tagging was done by another person [5]. I actually removed several images from the article. Ask the guy who added the tag to see if he wishes to remove it. (Earlier, it has CD covers from other Automatic-related singles, which is what I think got that above tag). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh right ah that confused me, oh well, thanksyous. ( LemonLemonLemons 12:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Not a problem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zach - just spotted this userbox - though you might like to know about it: {{ User Vexillology}}. Grutness... wha? 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I will stick with my babelboxes (honestly, I would not even have used those, but I was begged to use them by Polish users). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give an adequate explanation when you remove images from aircraft articles. It actuilly takes less space to say "source states image is copyrighted" than to say "see my talk page if you have any questions or concerns", and it saves the editors who regulary watch the page a lot of legwork to find out why they were deleted. Thanks for your consideration. - BillCJ 02:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They were removed by using an automatic script, so I am not able to give an exact edit summary like you suggested. Anyways, what happened is that many of the images I removed recently had a false license tag on it. The images were tagged as PD-Serbia, but the sources of the images stated that they had a copyright affixed to the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Two images of the Embassy of Serbia in Budapest have been removed without notifying me so I could argue their copyright status and what's even worse their tag was not incorrect. They were the official material of the Government of Serbia - Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Law is pretty clear on this issue and if the embassy puts © sign on their website it doesn't change a thing and is probably put on by web designers without consulting the legal advisors at the embassy. -- Avala 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) As you can see at the root website of the ministry there is no such all rights reserved statement nor any copyright notice at all - http://www.mfa.gov.yu/ -- Avala 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I went from the website of the Serbian Embassy in Budapest and used that to remove the images. Anyways, if you still wish for a photo to be used, have someone from Budapest to snap a photo of the building and that will work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can use this one but I don't like the vignette - http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Embassies/budimpesta/budimpesta_e.html Anyway maybe I'll contact the embassy and ask them to remove the false copyright information because it's not legal. Avala 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask if any Hungarians could take a photo of the embassy. Anyways, if I can be honest with you, I would avoid uploading that specific photo. The reason is the following; websites have copyright even if they don't state it. And Wikipedia assumes that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The first photo that was deleted was historical they won't be able to recreate that. Serbian law states that

The following shall not be deemed works of authorship:

...

2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;

...

and the embassy is part of the Ministry which is part of the Government (state body) thus all of their work is in PD. -- Avala 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why is all of government websites for Serbia that I have run into claim all rights reserved for their works? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

After tinkering for a few minutes, I launched an email to the website of the Serbian IP office (in English). If that fails, I will try and contact the Serbian Embassy in my country. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because this is Serbia. Lot of things here don't work as they should especially online. There was a report in Serbian media recently which revealed that Serbian government has no uniform standards for their websites, that most of them are rarely updated and that most of them are at the level that was used few years ago - meaning that they are just static presentations with no proper communication with public. I don't know where you live but don't get your hopes too high with embassies as people who had contact with them say that they can't even do consular service properly. The last thing you want is to loose Serbian passport abroad and need their help. For an example Ministry of Foreign Affairs email address didn't (doesn't?) work at all and at some point enthusiasts employed there opened the forum. On the forum they said something like "well of course our email doesn't work, what did you expect?". That forum was closed pretty soon. -- Avala 11:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am residing in the United States, specifically in the San Diego area. I also found a few other Serbian Wikipedians that I am discussing this issue with. I will probably slow down on my pace of removing the images, but I noticed that one of the Serbian uploaders that was blocked by me got a takedown notice on his user talk page. I will have to remove those images still. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re; images talk page, did you ask me to contact you on your talk page? I'm not in trouble am I? I was panicking last night! Sue Wallace 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not in trouble at all. I was wondering if you are still lost? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, it's very kind of you. I think I'm ok now, but last night I was rushing so much to update rationales that I got confused and ended up putting an image rationale on the article's talk page! ..Don't worry, I deleted it. I'll remember less haste more speed next time. Many thanks :) Sue Wallace 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you need anything else, the talk page is always open. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll hold you to that, thank you. Sue Wallace 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per your edit summary, I am inquiring why you deleted the Santa Fe, NM flag from the Santa Fe, NM infobox sample at WP:WPNM. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A fair use image being used outside of an article. I suggest using the state flag for the example infobox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The official flag of a US city is not a fair use image; if it has been flagged (no pun intended) as such, then that was a mistake. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please do not go and delete massive numbers of commented out sections (for Good Articles, etc.) from WikiProject main pages; those not-yet-used sections are there for a reason, because they will eventually be used. It is especially uncool to delete them with an edit summary that hides the deletion behind an image licensing cleanup summary. <frown> — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since what I was using is an automated script, I am not able to use a custom edit summary. Anyways, if the images are commented out, they will not be affected (unless the image is displayed normally also). However, I will keep those points in mind. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, Would you be willing to confirm this OTRS ticket on my talk page at User talk:Iamunknown#Emerson Page and, if it is correct, update Image:ElbowStrike.jpg (which is protected as it is on TFA) accordingly? Thanks, Iamunknown 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed and updated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that, sir. -- Mike Searson 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zscout370. I was just wondering why you removed Image:LVCityFlag.png from 1981 Formula One season and 1982 Formula One season. Thanks. DH85868993 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is licensed under fair use, but it was used in a manner only of pure decoration. So, using WP:NFCC as a guide, I removed them under Point 8. You can use the US flag to show the race occurred in the United States. If not that, then Nevada's flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've replaced it with the US flag. Thanks. DH85868993 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting these images by rote because some templates aren't right, please fix their licensing tags to US govt. PD. There is a mountain of First Amendment and US copyright jurisprudence establishing that a) works created by the US govt. (unlike that of the UK; cf. Crown copyright) are not subject to copyright, and b) that what holds for the US federal government also holds for all of its branches, Legislative, Judicial and Executive, and it subdivisions including state and municipal governments. If you have any doubts on this matter, I recommend contacting Mike Godwin ( User:Mikegodwin), WikiMedia's own house counsel, and someone that I know from direct work experience with him for almost a decade can speak authoritatively on this matter. This robotic deletion spree of yours is quite destructive, pointless and frustrating. I'm sure this sounds harsh, but it's not meant as an attack, just an expression of disbelief at the rationale behind removing "obviously" PD images because they are mis-tagged, instead of simply fixing their tags. If you did not already understand this US legal issue, then you may not be in a good position to be enforcing intellectual propery issues on WP; there are loads and loads of other maintenance things you could be doing. Again, this is not meant as an insult; I'm just saying if you would be more suited to a socket wrench or a power drill, please use those tools instead of the tack hammer you are whacking things with indiscriminately. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We been told to shoot them on sight from Jimbo if they screw up the license. I been dealing with images for about 2 years now, so I have some idea of what I am doing. I also been removing the fair use icons from band articles, which is not allowed according to our policies. I do not see it as an insult at all, just more mental note taking. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this in stride. I think either JW's being misinterpreted or has actually said (not being party to his proclamations in this regard, I'm uncertain) something that is off-base in this particuar regard. Please, have Godwin or other MW legal staff advise on this because the US legal issue is just not controversial at all, but long-settled. Things like city state flags or state seals or whatever are just not (in the US) covered by copyright, and it seems important that we establish this once and for all. If you are not interested in this (as a random WP admin that would not be non-understandable), who should I bring this to? There needs to be a systemic means of dealing with this issue in WP, or many perfectly fine images will be deleted for no real reason. :-( PS: I apologize for my testy tone earlier. My passion is easily aroused and hardily dissuaded. I think I came across as snotty, and apologize for being jackassy. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From what was explained to me by city officials; federal flags and state flags are public domain but not local. I have not found a source to say if the state flags are truly PD or not, so I decided to leave that issue a lone. State seals, I always see it as fair use unless someone drew it themselves or got it from an embassy page. I tried to get city flags before under a free license and most cities won't do it, so if they are old enough, I draw them myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Municipal govt. people often mistakenly think that municipal governments are somehow special and exempt from one thing or another to do with the First Amendment or copyright law, and are wrong. I once had a San Francisco parks department person try to tell me that I couldn't take a photo in a particular park with my girlfriend at the time because she looked like a professional model and I didn't have a professional photography license from the city. I almost turned that into an actual legal case, but the city capitulated before it ever got that far because they realized they were full of excrement. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know California copyrights stuff; I was involved in helping the PD-CA tag to get deleted. But, I do have a book of when flags were created and adopted, so that can help. That was how I was able to determine the San Diego flag is PD due to age. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind add some references of the Inter-service decorations of the United States military?

Thank you.-- 东北虎(Manchurian Tiger) 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a peek at it later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an article, Belarusian rock, and it's a stub. I myself cant help it due to bad understanding in the topic (unlike Russian rock, which i helped to alot), but as i noticed you are you are practicaly a one-men Wikiproject on Belarus, so if you want that's something that's worth being improved. M.V.E.i. 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A user offered me a project about Belorusian nature. Since i dont know the topic, i think you could work with him. Right now he couldn't fully devote to it because he's buissy on something else, but nevertheless he could help you. And later he could take a bigger part. Here is the discussion where we talked about it. The user's name is Sander Säde. M.V.E.i. 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you unprotect Toowoomba Grammar School please? or just make it semi-protected so i can add some categories to it please? please indicate a yes/no answer on my talk page. Thank you. Twenty Years 04:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, much appreciated. Twenty Years 04:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you do svg drawings for personal (off-project) use? Or just for on-wiki stuff? I would like my family coat of arms done.

Thanks, Jerry 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly Wikipedia work, sorry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for replying. Jerry 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done with the SVG images, and kudos to you for finding a good solution to this problem -- Samir 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I am not sure if this solution is complete, but I will wait and see what other comments were made. I have not found a MoD Ukraine source for the insignia, but something will turn up soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Second the award. I admire your enthusiasm and hard work. I think these are excellent images. While I recently posted certain doubts that getting you worked up like this is indeed an optimal solution, in no way I meant to disparage your hard work and the excellent images you created. -- Irpen 03:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, but just providing another option. If the images that are to be deleted needed to be restored once this is sorted out, I am willing to perform that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking care of the article. Second, i started a discussion here. 3. Why did you remove three orders he recived? I copied them from the Russian Wikipedia. M.V.E.i. 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed some that were not cited; given how Lukashenko's article is, we need to have a citation for everything good and bad. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering.Please dont take this offensivily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all. Anyways, I noticed this in the summary page "I would prefer if you don't use this picture,though." Since it is a personal picture of you, I deleted it. But, in the future, when you want a picture to be uploaded on Wikipedia that you made yourself, you have to let anyone and everyone use it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I add to that, Coolgirly? I had seen that image, and if Zscout hadn't deleted it, it's quite likely that I would have. Strangely, you had tagged it with {{ PD-self}}, which contradicts the statement that you'd prefer people not to use it. Since Wikipedia's purpose is to build a free-content encyclopaedia, we only accept non-free material under very limited circumstances, which do not include making one's user page nicer. It may seem a little unfair, since it was your image, but we want everything, or as close as possible to everything on Wikipedia to be free in the sense that it can be re-used, modified, and sold by others. If you would like to give permission for people to reuse that image in any way they wish, I'm sure Zscout or I will be more than happy to undelete it — something which can be done in less than twenty seconds! ElinorD (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, though, while I don't know your age, if you're under eighteen, we'd prefer that you don't put any information on Wikipedia that could lead to your identity being traced. There are a lot of undesirable people "out there", and this is just a basic security measure. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be restored, I can do it. I'm not that evil. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say "Zscout or I". It would depend on whether or not you were online! By the way, thanks again for resolving that copyright dispute over the Ukranian images last night. ElinorD (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Yeah, you can restore it too, if needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Belated translation is in your inbox... Renata 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I got the email. I am not sure what else it needs for featured status, but I will try and earn that bounty you have for the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seal of California.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These bot messages get lengthier by the day! aliasd· U· T 05:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I believe these are my wake up call. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seal of Nebraska.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seal of New Hampshire.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's it, your blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First, when we block bots, we give the operator an explanation. Ensure that you do so in the future.

Second, US flags are in the public domain. That means derivative works, like Image:Seal of Nebraska.svg, are also in the public domain by default.

Finally, I've tagged Image:Seal of California.svg for deletion because there is not enough source information as to where the seal was found. Note that even if you manually made the SVG, it still belongs to the state of California, and we need sourcing information to determine their license. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked with my state and the seal is PD due to age and gave a source of the information and the base image I used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, thanks for the headsup about image SeaGrapeLeaf.jpg... I have uploaded a full resolution copy of the image to Commons (and put a commons tag on the article, see Coccoloba uvifera), and deleted the previous one. seglea 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No questions, no concerns. Just telling you I noticed :) cheers! -- Ouro ( blah blah) 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was done by an automated script I have installed in my monobook.js. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I been trying to reduce usage of that image I removed; people asked for it to be removed from articles and that sort of stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with me at all. I understand. I changed my userbox so it looks something after the image was removed. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zscout370, you view might be required and helpful here as you have been dealing with topics re the WS conflict.

It would be great if you say your word. Thanks - wikima 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind I do not know a lot the WS at much; the only reason why I was able to help on the flag articles is that flags are my bread/butter issue. I'll look. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure I'd love to have someone of good faith assist me on this (which is not to discredit Fayssal, who is apparently injured.) - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 06:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now, I am waiting for the others involved to make a similar statement here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The sounds doable. Keep in mind I don't know a lot, but I will try it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool! It might actually help that it's a new topic for you, you can look at it with a fresh eye and see the places that need improvement. I moved your nomination for furry convention to "Miscellaneous culture and society" as I figure it's a good mix of both. GreenReaper 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I welcome your mediation and I am ready to cooperate with you to solve the rest of the disputed articles.-- A Jalil 09:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete it you feel like it. It was uploaded under PD-USSR when that license was in effect. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah; I will email the flickr users to see if we can get that image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Email sent. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your hopes high yet, though, Zachs. If I remember correctly, some of our self-important copyright "specialists" claim that there is no "freedom of panorama" in Belarus. There is a whole bunch of possibilities that stem from that. One is that this claim is nonsense as much of what is said by Wikipedia/commons wannabe copyright lawyers. Another possibility is that the image is legal if uploaded not from within Belarus as BE-law does not forbid taking pictures and US law does not forbid publishing one's own pictures. Yet another possibility is that the image is free onwiki but not allowed in commons which does (or may one day) allow only free worldwide images. Yet another possibility, is that the "freedom of panorama" important stuff is non-circumventable but this instantly opens the possibility of Fairuse rationale as the 1969 image has zero commercial value on one hand but replaceable with another non-free image only. There are endless possibilities and endless number of commons "specialists" who would give their valuable opinions on this crucial issue. -- Irpen 06:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at Irpen; I was informed about the image due to an FAC I started about Belarus. About the copyright law of Belarus, I have found this law and I have not see anything about the "freedom of panorama" mentioned at all (either allowing or forbidding it). I have uploaded several photos from Minsk and other Belarusian areas; I know several others who uploaded tons. I have not been sending many things to the Commons lately, but I will still await and see about the Flickr mail. I wanted to inform Ghirla because he was the uploader. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Limitation of freedom of panorama contained in next sentence from article 19: reproduction or communication for universal knowledge of works of architecture, fine art, photos, which are permanently located in a place opened for free visiting, except for cases when an image of the work is the main object of such reproduction or communication for universal knowledge or when it is used for commercial objectives. Sculptures are included in list of copyrighted objects (article 6).

On practice this mean that sculpture must not be main subject of image if you want to use image commercially. Otherwise you need to obtain explicit permission of sculptor or copyrights holder.

EugeneZelenko 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that from your reading the freedom of panorama nonsense is not popping up. I just seem to remember that there was some user who were roaming around deleting or tagging for deletion BE-images commons-wide invoking the "panorama" stuff. The proliferation of such nonsense in commons led me to quit my participation in that project and upload my images to wp only marking them with {{ keepLocal}} or {{ NoCommons}} depending on whether the image is already copied to commons. I long since gave up trying to talk reason to our self-appointed copyright enforcers who have no interest in encyclopedic content (no grudge from me though to copyright-conscious content editors.) -- Irpen 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, I am a little annoyed at the stuff myself. Honestly, if there was a lot more people doing this, I would pretty much be doing what I originally came here for; draw and write. I sometimes think what would my Wikipedia life be like without the shiny badge and buttons. Anyways, I will keep those two templates in mind and see what progress is made. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you to read copyrights law of Belarus or Russia (article 21). If you will not happy with some of laws provisions you are free on making choices: to continue to blame selected Commons administrators or influence law change (see example). Of course this choice require to distinguish between cause and consequence ( further reading). -- EugeneZelenko 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugene, I am reading the Belarusian copyright law, Article 21 and it mentions computer programs. I will try and read Russia's law if I can. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if I misled with this comment (actually addressed to Irpen). Limitation of panorama freedom is contained in article 19 of Belarusian copyright law and in article 21 of Russian copyright law. According to commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama same provisions present in laws of all ex-USSR countries except Ukraine and Turkmenistan. -- EugeneZelenko 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem; so with this provision in, what does this mean for photographs of Belarus we have of cities, memorials and other objects? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See what I meant? Sigh... -- Irpen 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Limitation of panorama freedom in Belarus for images of sculptures/memorials/etc mean that you have 2 ways of making photo of copyrighted work and use it for commercial purposes or made them publicly available:

1. Copyrighted object should not be main subject of the image. In this situation you don't need any permissions.
2. Otherwise you need to obtain explicit permission from author or copyright holder (if different).

This provisions seems logical for 2D objects like ad billboard (what is difference from scanning ad from magazine?) and not logical for 3D objects. But again, it's law of country which set such norms. Actually same problem exist in USA, France, Italy, etc.

Works of architecture is different things since it depend of definition of "work of architecture" in other parts of Civil Code. Could be building itself or its blueprints/projects/etc.

Khatyn memorial is copyrighted work. It was created at the end of 1960s. See details on http://www.khatyn.by/en/about/.

See also my first comment in this section.

EugeneZelenko 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Zach, just want to explain to you that by pressing the "copyright specialists" about Belarusian images and the Korean insignia I in no way want to belittle your effort which is worthy of many barnstar. I simply want to get to the bottom of it because, sadly, the copyright issues on wikipedia are too often taken over by users who have no idea but take great pleasure to go 'round showing off as "experts". I am so sorry that the divide between content writers and those who are here for other reasons shows up in so many different ways :( Cheers, -- Irpen 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not angry at you Irpen, I am just frustrated at the whole process now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Zach, yes, it is frustrating, but please make no mistake what is the source of this frustration: the wrath of wannabe experts of all sorts who instead of concentrating on the most important task, creating content, hang around Wikipedia to make themselves feel important. Some, instead of going after blatant copyvios uploaded by ignorant, newbie or outright malicious users go just after any image they can get their hands on. I've dealt with several users who examined my entire upload log in order to frustrate me and challenged most every fairuse rationale I ever wrote. They managed to delete the whooping two (!) of hundreds of my images.

It is so trivial that PD insignia is PD or that a person can publish his own picture the statue! But no, some Zelenko or whoever brings his original interpretations of copyrights to Wikipedia, where, unfortunately it makes a whole lot of negative effect. I would like to see what kind of laughing response he would get if he addresses the demands to remove images of Khatyn to hundreds of books, newspapers, and magazines that publish them every year. But those have real lawyers who would just tell such "experts" to get lost. In Wikipedia, "everyone" can edit, which means hit the images arbitrary left as right as it makes one feel "important" and "doing a great work", and non-editing admins who largely hijacked all boards in Wikipedia space would encourage such activity by giving such users many rounds of applause. It is very unfortunate that the divide between content writers and "policymakers" of Wikipedia grew so much since the days were we both started here. :( Cheers, - Irpen 08:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, CR7 ( message me) 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And what about {{ Attribution}} tag usage, like this this, from the same web page? M.K. 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Going to delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably you should contacted original unloader of image for clarifications, before deletion. Maybe he knows additional details regarding image use of this type. M.K. 11:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, but we usually delete copyright incorrect photos from the site in a speedy manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I only question this, because these images are very useful and it would be great if they were in PD. I intend to ask DDima (unloader of such image, if memory not fails me), maybe he knows something more. M.K. 16:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I had pictures from the website before, but they were deleted in 2006 because of the very same issue that is causing me to delete the images now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understood. M.K. 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rogereeny. I'll be ready to re-upload it, if necessary, once the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. We can restore images, including the image itself, like we can restore articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Even better. :) Keep in mind it might be awhile, depending on how slowly the wheels of the arb-com grind... or to put it another way, how long it takes for them to dump the rogue admin and/or the edit warrior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; most of the ArbCom members are admins or they can easily call admins to restore the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. We have options. Once some action is taken in the arbcom request. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And that is what I am waiting for. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The supposed lack of quality in wikipedia is a direct result of its "anyone can edit" policy. Good luck fixing that. The one item I ever submitted to IMDB, for example, was scrutinized by someone (I don't know who, maybe some high schooler) but at least it supposedly went through a review process before being posted. There is no point in trying to put something up as a "featured article", when most any moron could mess with it at any time, throwing egg on the face of wikipedia and undermining its already-questionable credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FA's get reverted all of the time or not edited that much. Even if people can't make FA's or GA's, we just need to cite more. That what mostly kills us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks. Looks good. Galantereischik 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see your talk page about the images (not by the bot, but from me). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if you still have any disagreements about my edits talk to me about it.-- Miyokan 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All on-wiki communications that I'm aware of between PR and Geni, or by others to Geni about mentorship, are located here. My expectation is that this mess will reach an ArbComm case similar to either Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I'm not sure when. My concern has been that we not let one set of POV editors run editors of the opposing POV out of town on a rail via lynching parties. GRBerry 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

please consider making some type of statement/action regarding my questions here. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to leave my house when I was making a decision on the mentoring issue or not. Anyways, I have blocked PR before and I will do it again. I would need some time to look at the offenses and see how much should happen. I am not going to make a mission statement to you, since each situation is going to require a different response. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship was supposed to involve me consenting to a mentor - I was very happy with User:Geni doing it. S/he (dunno which!) appeared to be good, keeping the howling pack away from my ankles. S/he forced me to back down at least 3 times. I strongly suspected s/he was being bombarded with accusations in e-mails, it progressed to harrassment of her/him and then the harrasment started to appear in public (unfortunately, I didn't clock the page of complaints written up). I had to hastily put in a complaint to say that at least 2 out of the 3 edits I'd quietly backed down over were factually correct and the opposition was purely ideological, so Gina was actually biased *against* me.

In one sense, taking over this task would be childishly easy. You'd only be the chief mentor over a team of dozens, your biggest problem would be hearing yourself think. Geni and I never shared e-mails, I can explain myself just fine on that public page you've been pointed to. PR ^talk 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And that is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zscout370, do you have a second user or is this your only user? Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an account that performs automated edits using Pywikipedia but that is it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zscout370, could you please provide a link to one of the blocks? Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 17:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did an unblock, nevermind. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove this image without any notice at all? Richard W.M. Jones 09:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

no images have been added since it was locked over 2 months ago! H8jd5 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to avoid conflict, because most people will consider Mexico as a developing or NIC. Coasilve 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is other countries, then you had a major world player telling that Mexico is a good country (in this case, Japan). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What was that? --  But| seriously| folks  05:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. The reason why it was false is that we had no proof for years that military insignia are PD because they are military insignia. People said it was in Geneva, but we could not find it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. The template's only used in 800+ places. <sigh> --  But| seriously| folks  05:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it was used by one or two users, so just nuke their uploads and we will get a whole bunch gone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is with the image Image:FleetAdmiral.gif, but the removals of that image has been restored on various articles. Please use a clearer WP:ES, or discuss on the image's talk page. —  MrDolomite •  Talk 11:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation, so I needed to orphan before I deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While IANAL and thought that uniform insignia of the United States were in the public domain, I do thank you for the information and the note back. 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite ( talk • contribs)

I have created and uploaded a new image myself. This is what you should have done instead of deleting the image. Hawkeye7 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We would have to deleted that reversion anyways, as per our policies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zach. Would you mind taking a look at the recent contributions of User:CoolKid1993? It looks to me like he has made his own version of a Nobel medal and changed all the Nobel prize biographies to use this image rather than the .svg image previously used in these articles. But taking a look at the Nobel Foundation's website, it looks to me like the medal's design is considered a protected trademark. [6]. Wouldn't this make the new image a fair use image as well? Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me some time to kick this around. But anyways, we should be using the vector, since I keep on being hammer for doing PNG images when Vector can be made. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this issue. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to respond here. Rlevse 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you have good intentions, I mean that seriously, but where is all of this coming from on the Korea ranks page that insignia are now stolen? I have made several long distance phone calls to Korea and a member of the CNFK staff was nice enough to log on and offer to respond on navy.mil to anyone who had questions. We seem to have gone from that to now saying that people aren't being truthful and that insignia pictures have been stolen. Please take a look at WP:AGF. I came to the Korea article trying to improve it and now it seems like you and your crowd are doing everything possible to take it down. - OberRanks 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You say I have given you no proof, yet I asked the military to e-mail anyone who asked about this from a .mil account. Will you provide an e-mail and give them a chance to answer before you start deleting images? - OberRanks 13:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW- I will give you that much of the stuff uploaded by User:Husnock seems fishy. I reviewed his page and a lot of the stuff he did appears to be from the IOH and Randolph Air Force Base collection. He claimed to once be a naval officer and was involved with the U.S. government at some point meaning he probably had access to government images. I have plans to re-upload much of his stuff from solid sources since most of it dealt with medals and ranks. - OberRanks 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd that you should say that - looking at your contribs, it seems to be that you may be the same person as Husnock. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing too Ober; a lot of people assumed insignia from all countries are PD because they are insignia. We proved that false this year and managed to get rid of all of the templates. Some insignia are PD, but it depends on the country. US and Belarus (where I edit about alot), are countries that PD insignia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont mean to upset you, but...

I dont mean to upset you and apologize if I do, but I reviewed Wikipedia regulations and it is improper for you to be deleting these images as you were directly involved in the debate and took sides in it. The proper thing would have been to let a neutral admin close out the discussion and have that admin delete the images. With you wiping out the article images it seems you have misused your admin powers to "get your way" as it were. again, sorry if I upset you, I just think we should ALL be sticking to procedure and policy here. With that said, I actually dont mind the images being deleted, just a bit worried about the way you did it. - OberRanks 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there are very few people that deal with copyright issues, I am usually involved in the discussions and deletions. Editing an article doesn't use administrator privileges at all, protecting articles do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In the end you were probably right, they were taken from that website; my anger was not directed against you but against the situation especially when I was making calls to Korea only to have the images then declared stolen. I am, however, very concerned that all images the original uploader Husnock ever uploaded are being summarily deleted by a single admin. I've raised a complaint on the admin noticeboard, but it might not get any attention as people are apparently letting personal feelings get in the way of this, calling Husnock a thief and a liar and things of that nature. To be blunt, I am thinking of distancing myself from all of this. The more I investigate that user and the images he uploaded, the more I find that there are admins who hate him with a vengeance. Whatever he did, I wonder if it was really that bad. Best to leave it alone, I guess, but I still dont think they should be mass deleting his image uploads. Best to you, thanks for the cool head in all of this. - OberRanks 10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why a lot of the images by Husnock are being dealt with by me is I worked with Husnock before he left about these very images. I was working with other administrators at the time when dealing with his images. Plus, he is one of the main people who used the "military insignia" template on the website. There will be other administrators who will delete, but only to clear our categories of images missing information. I do not hate the man, I considered him a friend and backed him on many Star Trek Insignia articles and worked with him on several medal articles. However, I just need to show tough love. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been on and off Wikipedia thoughout the day and the situation got very nasty indeed. I think I resolved it, but there is now a user out of Husnock's past returning swearing to stop the upload of further images, calling me a liar, and things like that. It could get ugly, I might ask for help. - OberRanks 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can try and help. As I said before, I do not believe the sockpuppet accusations, I am treating you as a new account who might needs to understand of what happened. I will explain more, but i need to go to class. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that having you as a mentor will lead directly to the same kind of harassment and bullying of you that was carried out on User:Geni. I see no indication that the culprit/s intend to mend their ways - far from it, a ludicrous complaint is now being levelled at one of our most scholarly editors from the same sources. If you behave honorably, applying your own judgment to each situation, there is a real danger of these attacks accelerating and threatening to cause you real trouble.

Moreover, it is not clear to me why we need any change - the arrangement with Geni was working fine. There were 6 or so issues reported that Geni appears to believe I explained satisfactorily and were left to stand. There was 1 mistake on my part (it had been sorted and apologised for 36 hours before Geni notified me) and 2 cases where I was over-ruled, with each of which I complied without complaint. (Despite a strong suspicion that they were opposed for ideological reasons, later detailed in order to oppose the implication that Geni was biased in my favour). Only one of the objections was "proper" - it would (likely) be unwise of me to get involved in a completed disciplinary, defending an administrator I thought had received rough justice.

I am minded to accept you as mentor - but I fail to see why this highly prejudiced "Mentor Shopping" should be accepted, especially in view of the known stridency of the complainers, and their clear propensity for the laying of often very frivolous complaints. PR ^talk 08:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I already been called a sockpuppet by one of the editors who was complaining against you. Now, you took your break from WP and decided to come back. What I am going to suggest to you is this; you can still edit Wikipedia, but I would suggest try to find topics that you know about that won't get you in trouble. I would also suggest helping fix typos or do general cleanup on the site. I am not sure what specific tasks you want, but I can secure some for you. Honestly, if you still wish to work with Geni, you are welcome to. I will need to speak to Geni privately about the issue, but I am not sure when. Don't worry about a formal "topic ban," I am not going to ask for one at all. I do not even feel that your last comment was massively trolling at all. Taking pop-shots at editors is not a good idea, but saying a source is bad to use is not a bad thing to say. Listen, hate to cut this short, but I need sleep. I work on the Pacific Coast, USA, time zone and that could limit my chances to edit here and mentor you. So just sit tight; email and IRC are open for you to use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be pleased to do anything that helps the project. I might even lay off pointing out and jeering at some glaring problems, at least for a while. I have a problem with editing on any of the other subjects that interest me, since I don't want this account linked to any of these other features of my life. It strikes me as a good idea if you're in touch with Geni (who, perhaps wisely, has not responded to an e-mail I did send it!). Like you, s/he is not identifiable by ethnicity or religion (or gender) and that's rather comforting. I know that's a funny thing to say for someone who seemingly "self-identifies" as a Palestinian, but you know what I mean! PR ^talk 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I can easily tell you that I could be considered a WASP, but I believe I been lucky on the site. Anyways, I will come up with some ideas and I will let you know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on this. PR ^talk 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

About the website choices, I am leaning towards not using both websites at all. If there is one thing I do know; anyone can just make a website and do anything now a days. I would use the state department website in very limited contexts, since they are the same folks who want to put entire militarties as FTO's. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work so far, let me know when you're done. -- Victor12 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I know WP:FAC can be really frustrating but it's currently the best way to get better articles. I just hope you keep on persevering, success is just around the corner. -- Victor12 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To cite the same book just mention it again changing the page. For further reference, you might want to check out Germany, which is a FA class article that uses the same reference system as Belarus. -- Victor12 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind consider "closed discussion" or "archived" headers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PR? It looks like you're effecting the resolution, and besides the thread has been inactive for 36 hours (ANI is archived after 24). < eleland/ talk edits> 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You can go ahead and take care of that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi ZScout. Just wanted to mention that Jaakobou raised a concern that he thinks are grounds for a block on PR. Over at the ANI thread. Maybe mention there or here how you're handling it? Thanks, HG | Talk 09:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, I authorize another administrator to take any action regarding blocks. All they just need to do is report it to me (here or email) and assist with any unblock request after 6 PM Pacific USA time. (I have something called a Japanese language test today.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of the following attack by PR on his talk page. [7] Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 07:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has a long history of harassment of people on their TalkPages - at one point doing it to two admins. His block on that occasion was lifted with this warning at the AN/I: "We don't block for punishment's sake - it's supposed to be a way of modifying behaviour. I think of it as being like whacking a dog with a rolled-up newspaper to discourage it from crapping on the carpet. If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." [8]

It should not be up to me to complain about this blatant defiance of the will of the community and remind everyone of the warnings handed out then. (By comparison, I've never again mentioned the CoI I detected in this connection, about which it would be entirely proper that I demand an answer).

I never complained about the only mentor I've accepted despite our disagreements (until right at the end for a balancing effect, as I explained). But running to teacher seems to be the prefered way of getting things done in the current atmosphere enpoisoned by harassment. It was not my intention nor is it my wish to be dragged down to this level - I'd much rather have the ArbCom which is now long overdue.

In addition, please note that these two users act in collusion together and make complaints that are blatantly false (see my one and only 3RR block, I've never otherwise received even a warning). Details if you want them, Jaakobou's record for making frivolous complaints larded with falsehoods is impressive indeed.

My apologies for using your TalkPage for this response, it's not a good start. If the only important characteristic of a mentor is the ability to stand up to and face down the personal harassment that is guaranteed to be visited on them, then the whole thing is even more of a waste of time than it appears. It's not even as if it works - 3 weeks of my working well with User:Geni ended up in another AN/I anyway. As so often before, that complaint was entirely frivolous, according to the evidence of others - seemingly serving only as an opportunity to further breach AGF against Geni and go "Mentor Shopping" for someone more malleable. Are you that more malleable person? PR ^talk 08:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is normal practice to refer problematic behavior to the mentor of those in mentorship, please try to avoid making this "personal" or trying to find a cabal, for we all know, there is no cabal. Kyaa the Catlord 10:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Zionist Political Violence

Please see here. PR ^talk 09:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing accusation

Please see here. PR ^talk 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Check this Can you please intervene? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i've just sent you an email again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not get it, sadly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Could you please send me a blank email? Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Test email sent. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you but can you allow me to edit semi-protected pages? My edits I think have been satisfactory so therefore I think that I should be able to edit them. If not where should I take my case or what should I do? Please reply on [[user talk:Rick-Levitt|my talk page]. Thanks -- Rick- Levitt ^Contribs 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a case where you'll need to be patient and add your requested changes to the talk pages of the pages you want to edit. Semi-protects only stop new users and since you've only been registered since the 16th, you're under the umbrella of "new". :P Kyaa the Catlord 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been a very good friend, thank you for your many help in many battles. I've entered a new era of peace and cooperation and am sorry if I hurt your feelings in anyway. I'm also going to check out Wikipedia Commons; it seems a little bit nicer over there with regards to the upload of images. - OberRanks 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a nice loophole you found, mate :). Now of course no objection to deleting Image:Mariyinsky_Jan23_2005_madl.jpg. Cheers, -- Irpen 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let the bots take care of it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pity though, I lost 15 minutes to write a rationale. But no worries. -- Irpen 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Sarah 05:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		You thoroughly deserve this barnstar for your fine and determined work on the Belarus article. -- ROGER DAVIES  TALK 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at this - where User:Jaakobou has re-opened a closed AN in order to accuse me of sock-puppetry - and it's difficult to see how this could be in good-faith, there is nothing whatsoever to link me to that anonymous IP. Jaakobou has made at least one other reckless accusation of sock-puppetry against an editor in good standing (and then thrown my name into their cases as well for ... what, in order to fling the mud as far as possible?). And this comes less than 2 weeks after he was warned and apologised for "Forum Shopping". This behaviour is particularily devious because the original discussions is meant to be on the Admin noticeboard where lots of people see it - for no obvious reason, mine was hived off to a hidden page where hardly anyone is still watching it. The case against me looked like a "Star Chamber" while it was in the open (perhaps that's why people with respect for the project wanted it bundled out of sight). It's an even more sinister process now it's "hidden". PR ^talk 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, but my area of San Diego is on fire, so I will let other admins handle it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please put the safety of you and yours ahead of any concerns of mine! PR ^talk 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit today to your userpage showed up on my watchlist. I am sure that all of us join in hoping that you come out of this situation safely and rapidly. In the unlikely thing that there is anything more I can do besides type words like these, please let me know. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -- Irpen 02:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck out there. HG | Talk 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the wrath of the Lord for agreeing to be my mentor - which function has turned round and bitten in the arse everyone else who tried it. I was going to request you look at this and assure me I wasn't soap-boxing, but it seems a teensy-weensy bit trivial under the circumstances. Take care - don't eat yellow snow. PR ^talk 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Take care with the fire, and I wish you the best of luck :) Oh, and, I figured I'd try this template, so...

It's a 'butte :) Cheers, and again, good luck out there, ( ar ky ) 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Googlewatch.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to keep rationality in that article. However, next time you should be a bit bolder. The guy you were reverting actually did a lot of damage to that article. I hesitate to call it vandalism; but part of it definitely looked that way. Apart from what you noted, he put back the silly "east amusing" text about Putin (a Web translation German-English), put back the old version of the Georgian rumour, put back the gay icon thing and deleted several icons asking for a reference. And he put in a copyvio Youtube video. And a wiki link to the closed Siberian wiki. And I am sure there is more that people will have to clean up later - I would have reverted the whole kaboodle. Keep up the good work. -- Paul Pieniezny 08:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted once earlier to a previous version and he, without discussion, reverted me. Know about the subject of the article, I tried to see what "what is it" that is causing him to do this. So I took out what I could take out, but now since you explained everything, I will be more bold. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

His first edit was on a much older version. That explains why the protection label got in. I have had a look at his talk page: it is not the first time he did this, even including the protection label. The problem is that some of his changes are reasonable, he may not even notice himself that he is in fact vandalizing (the Siberian thing is actually not his fault, I see now), so people in the end refrain from reverting him. Note that he already got blocked for edit warring at Vladimir Putin. Keep up the good work.-- Paul Pieniezny 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am filing a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Miltopia. John254 01:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

not even a little bit premature. Viridae ^Talk 01:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has been reverted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed you quoted me on your userpage. Do you remember what the context was? android 79 02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Userbox wars when Kelly Martin deleted a few and the community was split in half. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You need praise for what you did, I think. It takes a lot of guts to stand up against the crowd for what you believe is right, but undoing a block by Jimbo himself takes a truly bold user. That's not something very many admin's will do, but your AGF is applaudable here. To unblock Miltopia, I mean. Mr. Carbunkle 09:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. AGF wasn't the main reason why I undid the block, IAR wasn't the full reason either. I just found it very, very strange that a block was applied on somewhat weak evidence (no real recent activity of harsh trollery) and then leaving on a jet-plane. The block, and the discussion itself, could have easily waited until he got back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, cool. I dunno if a full site ban is in order or not - personally, I like some of his stuff (ASCII art "Diabeetus" is my userpage now) and I don't think he's a troll - but I thought it was pretty WP:BOLD to stand against consensus and Jimbo Wales himself, especially for an admin in good standing. I'd consider that a compliment. :) Mr. Carbunkle 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the true test comes Monday (about that ASCII art, I am not sure if that is ok or not, but that is a separate issue and it wasn't a factor in his block, I think). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Zach. Can you make a ribbon for this? Thanks, -- Irpen 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not leaving a note on your talk page stating that I had reviewed it. It was late last night. I see that several of you have already started (and finished, perhaps?) addressing the issue. Please advise if you would like me to re-review early, or wait the standard seven day period. I am at your service. (I trust you have come through the fire situation OK?) Mmoyer 18:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! GA achieved! Good job! Mmoyer 05:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am back now; anyways, some edits were brought up to my attention when I was dealing with the fires. First, trying to bring up past histories of users is not a good idea. No matter if it is a person you are currently debating with or not, that will just cause settled issues to be fought over again. Second, just because I am not here to enforce blocks or issue them doesn't mean anyone else cannot. All admins have my permission to block you if needed; all they need to do is just email me to tell me what happened. I am hope I am clear on that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true enough I've reminded one editor that he's been found to have been harassing other editors (and two admins!) and warned to stop doing it. (It seems as if he's been doing it a lot since, on TalkPages, with laughable sock-puppet complaints, with "Forum Shopping" etc etc). I've never been warned for attempting to protect editors from harassment, however.

If this behavior is really out of order, then please rush over and check this, where I could be guilty of doing something similar. The behavior I've identified there is less than a week old, however (or rather, was less than a week old when I brought it up). I trust the acupuncture and massage was to your liking. PR ^talk 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of Canada.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that you revert this action as I do not believe there was any urgent need to override or consensus to do so. With all regards, Mercury 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I second that, the consensus so far at AN/I is that the block is valid. Plus, I don't think it's a great idea reversing Jimbo's actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The blockable offense occurred in April, which was he blocked for anyways. I stand behind the unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you override WP:BAN#Decision_to_ban? Mercury 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR if you want the short form. I do see he has the right to ban, but I do not see anywhere that his ban is absolute and can never be reversed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with IAR... thank you for being responsive. Regards, Mercury 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IAR isn't the full reason; I gave it at the Noticeboard. I also been trying to dig out examples of Jimbo blocks that were reversed; I know he founded the place, but he kept on saying that his actions are not immune from questions or reversring. I waited for the questioning, which I found some. After doing research, I decided an unblock until Monday. Then, if yall want to set it back up again, I have no problem. I just want a formal discussion, not a "Oh, I blocked someone, I am off on a jet plane." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia seems to remain unblocked, I wonder if you might restore and unprotect his userpage? It currently still says that he is a banned user. Thanks, Privatemusings 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I also request that you revert your action here. Jimbo doesn't do these things lightly. There's been a long pattern of disruptive behavior and previous blocks. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova ^Charge! 01:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

His userpage was unprotected by me and reverted before the block issue began. As I said before Durova, I do not wish to undo the block. If a new block is applied Monday, with more discussion, I will not undo it. I just hated the way this block was applied this time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Put me down as another vote to reverse yourself. I'm all for banning net negative editors, but I'm not convinced that Miltopia is one, so I'm inclined to agree with your decision to unblock him. What I am convinced of, however, is that wheel-warring is bad, and that Jimbo (judging from precedent) is almost certainly going to desysop you when he gets home. You're a great admin, and it would be a loss for the project if that happened. Re-block Miltopia. It won't kill him to stay blocked until Monday, and maybe Jimbo won't desysop you. A Train ^talk 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with Jimbo with OTRS issues, I had Jimbo yell at me for doing those actions badly. If I lose the bit over this, then it happens. Jimbo is a reasonable person and he can and will be stern and fair when needed. I do expect something from Jimbo, just need to wait and see what happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the block. Please leave it in place while discussion continues. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And I will. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be of interest Zscout370, WP:BLOCK#Unblocking. 1 != 2 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And this is what it reads "If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#My_desysop_of_Zscout370 - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• nods* User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Zach, here is my advise which you are free to throw out of the window. For now, have a glass to the right. Maybe have a second one if you feel like it. Then take a one week break. Or a two-week break. After that, allow the Zeus to keep your adminship to himself or give it to one of his cronies. Adminship is so worthless compared to the great content that we are all putting here. I wonder whether the god can write any articles like we do. Last time, it was an article about a cafeteria or something were the god once ate. This is a perfect chance to return full-time to the only thing that make Wikipedia worthy. But take a break first and take no part in the fest that is now unwinding. -- Irpen 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still talking with Jimbo now about it, so it will be settled to some degree. I am still debating about my sysop bit, and I have expressed that to Jimbo. I do not know how long it will take, but it will be for a while. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am second to this Alex Bakharev 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To tell you how much I admire you. Even with the wikidrama taking place on ANI, you still bring issues of user behavior to admins' attention. If admins are supposed to be rolemodels, you have raised the bar for everybody. Take care, Jeffpw 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not expect to be a mentor for PR soon, especially with this going on, but as I said before, I got time to think about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say me too, but "Me too". I'm pretty disgusted about what's been happening - this could have been solved much more easily by Jimbo taking you on one side for a chat; it didn't need to escalate to this level. As I've probably mentioned to you before, in NZ we have a Maori phrase, "Kia kaha", which literally translates as "stand strong", and figuratively means "don't let things get to you, you have friends here".

Kia kaha, Grutness... wha? 05:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jeffpw, and was really sorry to see this, mate.  Dihydrogen Monoxide ( H₂O) 06:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, icky drama. Fight on, Zscout. :P Kyaa the Catlord 06:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see that there's been so much fuss. But maybe you have a spare minute all the same to look at this: do we allow "fair use" claims for FOTW images now? That's a new one to me. I'd also think it fails at least WP:NFCC #8 (significance), as there's no critical commentary on the flag in the article. What do you think? Lupo 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The second URL has an image, so we can use that (as small as it is). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know its selfish, but I'd really rather you not step down from being PR's mentor. He needs a stern hand and you're one of the few admins I know who has the chutzpah to handle him, although based on his opposite to you schedule, I can understand if you choose not to remain his mentor for purely coordination purposes. Kyaa the Catlord 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, given what has happened recently, and that PR does a lot of damage that I cannot deal with until hours after it happens, I cannot be an effective mentor for him. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You handled a difficult situation with grace. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi- Regarding Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg: I note that the link you provide does not show an exact replica of the image you actually uploaded. I'm wondering, was the current file on Wikipedia created by you? If so, would the copyright status not be the same as that for Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg, which was similarly made by an individual, and is now a featured image? I only ask as the Wikipolice are coming down on the use of your CoA in my image Image:Can-pol w.jpg. Cheers. -- G2bambino 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the coat of arms was made in 1994, people were claiming crown copyright for it. The UK coat of arms is older than that, I assume, so any copyright has passed. I will look at that image soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what, that image has to go. The problem is that the image you made is comprised of so many images and I doubt you are able to GFDL it. Plus, I forgot to mention fair use is not allowed inside of templates. I replaced the picture with that we could use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed; I changed the arms to a free version. Now all the constituent elements of the image are free, making the image itself acceptable for use in the template. As per the UK arms, I thought as much after I left the above message for you. Too bad this can be so difficult at times. -- G2bambino 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with the image still is that the coat of arms image is being put up for deletion debate on the Commons. Plus, the top right flag image is neither on here or at the Commons. I would like a source for that. Plus, if I can offer a non-copyright opinion, I think it is strange to use an image like that when we have images of Parliament or something more professional looking to use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Main article: User:Hbdragon88/contrib

Just wanted to comment on your 9 September 2007 comment displayed on your userpage. Is it possible to have all articles as FAs and GAs? Maybe I'm working in the wrong area, but I keep getting walled off everywhere I go. All the character articles I've worked on? Still consist of WP:NOT#PLOT and no real-world notability. They involve my favorite series, so I'm not going to AFD them, but I'm sure they would probably succeed if they went. Lists are better than having separate articles, but only marginally. Indiana Jones and Die Hard (not listed, since that is a bit out of date) used to be as badly cluttered with articles, much better now though.

Many of the video game articles? Well, pretty much all WP:VG/GA have "development" sections, but I don't have access to old magazines and such that would let me make it broad enough ( WP:WIAGA 3a). This isn't a message of despair, please don't interpret it like so. Instead, I've retooled myself as a hit-and-run editor who improves articles the best I can. But really? GA seems out of my reach, for the most part. Except maybe for Flash Focus, once I get some more development info (likely requires someone who can read Japanese). I have one surviving GA, Duke Nukem Forever, which was recently reviewed and barely found to meet GA standareds, but I'll take it. hbdragon88 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it is not possible for every single article to get GA or FA, but we should do be doing better less than 1 percent. Maybe 10 percent should be our goal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Grace
		I hereby award this gaudy yellow barnstar to Zscout370 for handling a difficult situation with grace going above what can be reasonably expected of a man (or woman?) and diffusing drama rather than feeding it. Cheers, Wily D 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Tautiška giesmė, hope all is well. Sincerely, Novickas 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Second that :) I was/still am on self-imposed wiki-wacations (for no particular reason) so I did not even notice that it was nominated & passed... I will check (don't hold your breath) if I could find something about the soviets, but I am doubtful... Renata 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is insanity. If I was a crat, I'd revert the big guy myself right now. Hang in there man! --  But| seriously| folks  22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting outside views on the situation at General (United States). Please go ahead and take a look as your opinion is valued. - OberRanks 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking on behalf of Richard Levitt. Richard is a highly respected Wikipedian and he invites you to join his group of elites. This, I assure you , will be highly beneficial to yourself. If you are interested in this oppertunity, contact me on MY talk page. Do not speak to Richard directly as he is a very busy man. If you do, your invitation will be withdrawn. I hope to hear from you soon. Kindest regards, D'ragosMorgul (Messenger of Levitt) 11:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to decline this invitation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, is there any reason to include Talk:Plague Pillar (Košice) into the Wikiproject Belarus? Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek 08:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was included in the category of Carpathian Ruthenia, which was in the History of Belarus category. I will remove it now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Zach. I don't know what happened but the Betacommandbot has run amok and tagged hundreds of the purely Ukrainian articles that have nothing to do with Belarus (I mean modern topics, not the medieval Rus ones) as Belarusian. This was a major hassle. It polluted the watchlist of so many people, caused unnecessary annoyance and confused the readers. There is a lot of work to undo now. I gather you might have talk to its owner and he misunderstood you or something. Could anything be done now? I mean having editors manually follow the bot and undo it just makes no sense. -- Irpen 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the Bot acted on my behalf and he did what I told him. Do not blame the bot for this one, blame me. As I mentioned before, anything that is even in the sub-categories of Belarus was tagged, even related to Kievan Rus. If you noticed a change, just revert. If a page was created, let me know what pages they are and I will arranged to have it deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I gathered that you had something to do with this :). Anyway, I will post to the Ukrainian board that false tags should be manually removed. My only concern is making sure that the bot does not revert or repeat this disastrous spree. Don't worry, mistakes happen. Maybe next time you better use your own bot instead of borrowing someone's since only because I know some context I figured to contact you. Also, please consider soliciting the opinions at the appropriate portal board next time before running bots. Cheers, -- Irpen 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the only run of the bot, I can promise you that. Everything else is manual. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I'll try to correct all them, just wanted you to know about. -- R O ^{A M A T A A} |  msg  12:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, take a look at Talk:Postville, Iowa. Not sure about this one either. -- Dennis Fernkes 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox Jewish communities is the common thread. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you aren't watching " Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Flag of Singapore, again", I've posted a response to your message. — Cheers, Jack Lee ^{– talk–} 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, check out the following articles too:

1. Talk:Uzhhorod National University
2. Talk:Uzhhorod International Airport
3. Talk:Transcarpathian State University

I do not think that any of them is Belarus-related. K r i s t o f ^talk 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are correct. The articles were tagged because they were in the Carpathian Ruthenia category, which is part of the main Belarus category. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how Carpathian Ruthenia is connected with Belarus.... K r i s t o f ^talk 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Carpathian Ruthenia is in the Ruthenia category, which is in the category for the History of Belarus. You can remove the tag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Belarus tag on the Crown Height (Brooklyn, NY) riot of 1991? The driver of the car in the automobile accident was a member of Chabad, and Chabad's first leader from over 200 years ago was from Belarus...? It seems to be too far of stretch of a connection. Edstat 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and you cam remove the the project tag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand and respect (though not entirely agree) with Wikipedia's policy discouraging trivia sections; but simply "nuking" them as you did in this instance was a bit harsh, and I think you ought to considering helping work information into an acceptable form the next time. -- Bobak 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you find me a more specific edit? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, copied the wrong link. Its fixed now. -- Bobak 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that. Ok, in that instance, I believe the aspect of Borat using his image was not significant. If Aliyev put a response to it, then it might be worth noting. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

-- nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you hate Kola Boof. If so, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 ( talk) 09:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. However, we had many issues with the article on Wikipedia, so we had to remove it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Boof is very notable: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 ( talk) 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability had nothing to do with the article deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:God Defend New Zealand instrumental.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 09:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the fair use recording with a public domain recording. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Despite being an American, you have written GAs on Japanese, Filipino, and now, Singaporean topics. I have never seen an American so committed to fighting systemic bias. Since there's no Countering Systemic Bias barnstar (yet), I have decided to award you the Good Article Medal of Merit. Congratulations, and keep up the good work! J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Zscout, as an editor I respect, I'd like to ask your opinion of the edit summaries by Ned Scott on the history of this page: [10]. Am I being too sensitive or should I be reporting him to the no personal attacks police? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While finding a good source is a concern that cannot be sanction, I believe a friendly note should be placed to tone the edit summaries down just a tad. No ANI report needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

... :~((( Renata ( talk) 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Despite being an American, you have written GAs on Japanese, Filipino, and now, Singaporean topics. I have never seen an American so committed to fighting systemic bias. Since there's no Countering Systemic Bias barnstar (yet), I have decided to award you the Good Article Medal of Merit. Congratulations, and keep up the good work! J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Zscout, as an editor I respect, I'd like to ask your opinion of the edit summaries by Ned Scott on the history of this page: [11]. Am I being too sensitive or should I be reporting him to the no personal attacks police? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While finding a good source is a concern that cannot be sanction, I believe a friendly note should be placed to tone the edit summaries down just a tad. No ANI report needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

... :~((( Renata ( talk) 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Have no idea why someone thought that you were a non-native speaker of English. Looked pretty native to me! Left a comment to that effect at the article. Regards, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The SS and SA rank insignia are being mass deleted from the Commons, affecting the long standing articles over here. The images are being deleted as “no source”. I wasn’t involved in the uploading of those images to the Commons, but the source is the National Archives at College Park. They have a CD with all SS rank and unit insignia which is where I got the images from in the first place. Whatever people may say about me, these images weren’t stolen. In fact, I suspect the international insignia website, which everyone frequently says is the victim in these cases, probably got the images from NARA.

In any event, maybe you can reverse the damage that’s being done. That article stood for over three years without a single problem.

As for me, I’ve had it with this site and don’t plan to ever upload another image because, even with proof and sources, the sources themselves get challenged. The whole deal over at the Commons with Star Trek where people said “Paramount must be lying” is a perfect example. Not to mention we have some pretty scary people on this website who take this crap way too seriously and then bring it over into the real world. I am presently working with the OTRS people on one such issue where another user contacted my job and has made comments as well towards my family. It’s just not worth it.

Thanks for your help both with past issues and this one. Best. - OberRanks ( talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I denote on my userpage, I am part of the OTRS crowd. Just email me using the "email this user" function and I can deal with it there. About the Star Trek images, I was contacted by CBS lawyers saying that these images were under copyright and we could use them under certain conditions. These conditions made it impossible to host the images at the Commons, thus my removing of the images. I have sent the OTRS staff persons emails from CBS, but some still do not wish to believe me. This is a constant problem with OTRS; since it is a secret place due to what we handle there, many just question everything.

I have embedded the OTRS ticket number in this message much the same way you did in the Korean rank articles. The OTRS case contains my real name and government e-mail so it is a sensative issue (which is why its hidden). The sooner that is taken care of the better and I thank you very much for your help with it. - OberRanks ( talk) 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Check your inbox and lets continue there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, about the Nazi insignia, the issue is that even if there is a source or license of the images, it will be removed from the Commons. The reason is that German copyright for Nazi materials is still in play. I do not know for how long, but many WW2 images from the Germans are being removed on a constant basis. The only suggestion I have is that is the images need to be reuploaded to en.wikipedia as fair use, but I am not sure if that will be considered "way to much." I will bring this up with other administrators now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered that O-Bot deleted Image:Macarthurcap.jpg as "no source". That image was very clearly sourced as a picture of a MacArthur hat replica, released into the Public Domain by Uncle Sam's military surplus company which is a local chain of military clothing and insignia stores located in the St. Louis area. All the contact info is here [12]. I would simply reupload the picture, but I dont want to see it challenged again becuase I uploaded it and also I have chosen to upload no further pictures. Perhaos you can speedy undelete as O-Bot deleted for an invalid reason. Thank you for this and all your help. - OberRanks ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

This is a question/response about your LOCE request on Belarus. It seems to me that the article has already undergone two copyedits and one proofread, the last as recently as one month ago. Were both of these partial CEs? If the article still requires a CE, are there sections that you think can be omitted? I will gladly fill the request if need be. Thanks -- Malachirality ( talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

These were partial and full copyedits, but some users still did have major issues with the English grammar. I was confused myself, so I went to yall again. I gave up on the FAC once it got started over, so it is still your choice to copyedit it or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have deleted numerous GIF/PNG images without discussion on the basis that SVG versions existed. Under what policy is this the correct procedure? — David Levy 08:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#Images_and_media, the first item for redundancy. I also do it for general cleanup, since if a PNG or GIF image is not being used, but an SVG is here, why keep the former around. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The criterion in question applies strictly to an image "in the same file format," and this is no accident. Your "cleanup" circumvents the correct deletion process (which enables members of the community to assess the comparative quality of a vector graphic and the raster graphic that it's intended to replace). Please cease this inappropriate activity and restore the images that you have deleted in this manner. Thank you. — David Levy 08:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will cease for now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the imperial triple crown jewels you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! Durova ^Charge! 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zscout370. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/ c 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I ws just wandering if I can upload a new version of the Worker's Party of Korea flag? Can I? Your reply will be hapilly acknowledged. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by U2blueEagle ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as you keep the license, sure. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure this one was nonsense; yogurt does contain active bacterial cultures, and this would be a plausible search term. The other redirect the user made was nonsense, though. -- Core desat 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was still asked to be deleted; it was also a double redirect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

... are you adding more Japanese language links? That would be a Bad Thing, sorry. Ling.Nut 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete the Canlis Restaurant article. It was not an advertisement. It is a famous restaurant, established for more than 60 years and well-known. The article had several contributors who had provided some serious editing. Tbbooher 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the article sounded like an ad. I suggest going to Wikipedia:Deletion review. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you see the text of the 1999 law saying that it invalidates the law of 1870? Thanks Ling.Nut 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thge dimensions/specs were explicity set one way in 1870 and very explicitly changed in 1999. Did the 1999 law invalidate making the Hinomaru the national flag (which had already been invalidated, in my opinion) or merely invalidate the 1870 dimensions? Ling.Nut 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I do know for certain that the dimensions for the 1870 flag were abolished in this 1999 law, since the new dimensions were given below. However, about the actual law making it a national flag, I only saw an adoption date for this national flag and not for any other laws. The other thing I noticed is that the rules for flying the flag by the merchant marine was also abolished (and never replaced, since I don't see protocol on how to fly the national flag encoded into law). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you're saying the 1999 law did not need to "repeal" (or even explicitly address) the 1870 law regarding the flag's status as a national symbol; that had already been repealed. The 1999 law only needed to explicitly address those aspects of the 1870 law that dealt with the flag's specifications. Is that the case? Ling.Nut 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it to me. Anyways, I wish to ask if the changes so far at the Flag of Japan article are going in the right direction or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I just added some content about the occupation period. the article still needs info about the on again/off again legal status of the flag... and I need to look again at all the other sections. Ling.Nut 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the content duplicated what was there, so I merged both of it together. I think a new section in the article about it's legal status would be good for that section, if history is not a good idea. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was much better when it was in two paragraphs. Much more clear. It could have used some extrememly minor tweaking, rhat's all. Ling.Nut 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is back to two paragraphs now; what I meant by combine some information is that your new paragraph and what I had did duplicate sentences, so I wanted to combine those. I always had a problem with redundancy when writing articles recently. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• (undent) I fixed the redundancy. :-)
• Hey did was that lettr only a request for permission? Do we know permission was granted? I'm talking about this:

With the blessing of General Douglas MacArthur, the Hinomaru was allowed to displayed on the grounds of the National Diet building, Imperial Palace, Prime Minister's residence and the Supreme Court building without restrictions starting in 1947.Shigeru Yoshida (1947-05-02). "Letter from Shigeru Yoshida to Genaral MacArthur" (in Japanese and English). National Diet Library. Retrieved 2007-12-03.

• Ling.Nut 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Never mind! I'll put it back in... Ling.Nut 08:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Permission was already giving, Yoshida was giving thanks for the move. I went ahead and put it back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Have you ever read WP:LEDE? It's important... the lede needs a lot of work.. there is a lot of data there that does not appear in the article's body, and I think the data was not referenced... (?) Ling.Nut 08:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the lead section. I just nuked the legend stuff and only kept stuff that was actually in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I htought the stuff about the legend was really interesting. If it can be sourced, we can put it back in, in an appropriate manner. plus there is no mention of the controversy... Ling.Nut 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It does: "Along with the Japanese national anthem Kimi ga Yo, the Hinomaru is considered by some Japanese as symbols of the militaristic past of the country. The Hinomaru was also severely restricted in how it was used during the American occupation of the country after World War II." As for the legend, we can have an entire section about the flag legends, and just briefly mentione them in the lead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) If there's enough info for a asection about legends, then that's a very good idea... actually, it would be a subsection of the History section... Ling.Nut 08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my feelings. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

...at Talk:Occupation of Japan Ling.Nut ( talk) 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you removed some interesting illustrations from this article. Was there a compelling reason? Nihil novi ( talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not for copyright issues, but mainly just too much photos in the article. I didn't think we needed random photos of persons who were mentioned maybe once or twice in an article. There are also many photos with Pilsudski wearing his field cap, so having an image specifically of him (with the cap caption) was not needed, IMHO. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you well. I agree that moving names form one to another is not very good practice as was done in Żeligowski's Mutiny. However I have question regrading protection - I did not find any public request and motives on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection including its history. Could you please clarify there was placed public request for this protection. I interested in this, because I witnessed many wars and then asking for protection they usually decline, so if I see how request motive was formulated it would help me in the future. I look forward hearing from you, M.K. ( talk) 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a public or private request; it was on my own initiative. All I ask for the movers to do is fill a move request and that will be be fine. People can still edit the article, since it is only protected for moves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I was interested that is the "amount" of reverts which results protection. Could you share your experience in this field? Or there are no define amount? Because when I see reverts I hesitate to report, because I unaware if it is enough to lay protection. If you could share your thoughts about it I would be very grateful. Thanks, M.K. ( talk) 10:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Zach, could you do me a favor and look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Escudo de Gales.png? I also left a note on Template talk:Vector-Images.com. I saw that you were involved in prior discussion on that page. -- I. Pankonin ( t/ c) 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the note at the Commons, since I also admin there. Anyways, we will keep the SVG image and most likely get rid of the PNG image due to SVG being preferred over PNG in many ways. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

...the whole early history bit is unreferenced; so much so that it would be an automatic fail to GA. Where did all that info come from?? Alos check the whole article for similar strecthes of unreferenced info; i didn't look... Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I personally worked on was from "The earliest recorded Japanese flag in Japan occurred during the unification period." on down. I have no idea where the other information came from or who wrote them. However, I have final exam next week, so my time working on this will be sketchy. However, everything else has been cited heavily, since I have actively worked on those myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, pending verification and sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

here Ling.Nut ( talk) 16:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While I am glad that you wish to keep the article at its' GA status, I wonder what other concerns you have with the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. – Ilse @ 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be withdrawn, but will work on whatever someone put on there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to upload pictures of the Iowa districts for the Iowa Senate and Iowa House of Representatives from their official website what image tag do i need to use? Mr. Z-man referred me to you for help Ctjf83 ^talk 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to MrZMan on IRC this afternoon. However, I did see this page saying some of the information is under some form of copyright. However, there might be a way I can personally make public domain maps. I need some time to figure it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, i also e-mailed them to see if it is copyright or not, and if it is, if they will give me permission to use it..i'll keep you up to date though Ctjf83 ^talk 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when asking for permission for images, keep in mind of what is at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got any response yet, do you wanna see if you can remake both of those maps for me? Ctjf83 ^talk 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Original convo: User_talk:Zscout370/Archive_8#Matt_Furey I'm posting on main talk page because I wasn't sure if it was proper to respond by editing an archived convo once it was archived.

Do you know if there is a way to retrieve the original content prior to your deletion? It seems the article has been recreated twice by other persons in very bad taste, I think the original form from April would be the closest to a good article foundation. If that can be retrieved, than prior to making an article I could perhaps go over the problems of non-notability that caused its deletion in the first place and attempt to settle that before recreation. Tyciol ( talk) 11:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked and there were more deletions after mine. If you can give me a few days, I will think about seeing if the article could be restored at all. However, I express doubt that I will find anything that will pass our requirements for notability. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from looking back at the article, I will not restore it and there is nothing to salvage. However, your method of asking me here instead of an archive is a pretty good method to use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

OK, thanks for clearing that up etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:39th Congress BRSM.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zscout370. John254 00:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

John, listen, I know you want this to be clarified, however, this was already settled. In the first desysoping, me and Jimbo had a nice chat about it. He even said after it that I was a good administrator in good standing, which can be found at his RFC. Second, while I know what I made was a mistake, Jon Soby realized it and apologized. I spoke to Soby on IRC letting him know I am not upset at him. I also been in contact with the OTRS list about the restoration, since I am part of OTRS. That is where it was decided to remove Carolyn's article. I already apologized to OTRS about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your post on the WP:Japan page about this article. Two articles that may help give more info for the article are here [13] and here [14]. Cla68 ( talk) 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I have the first link in the article already. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Given that Carolyn Doran is likely to be a contentious subject, it should probably be taken to WP:AN. Let's try and pre-empt a wheel war here. Ral315 ( talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It already has been; people on the article talk page said not to delete the article. I follow their suggestions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[15]Arbcom decision? Risker ( talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff's decision; where any article that is deleted with the reason of BLP, it must never be restored until consensus is made. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you have already noticed, but I desysopped you for wheel warring over the Doran article, per the request of Dmcdevit and three other ArbCom members who were online at the time. It’s up to the ArbCom whether or not this is temporary, I assume. Jon Harald Søby ( talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I emailed Jimbo, and my rights were restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...and now the bit is back, as it seems I misinterpreted the situation and reacted to hastily. I apoligize for the inconvenience and confusion this must have caused. Jon Harald Søby ( talk) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one am glad that your user rights were restored. Speaking as someone who was actively involved in the situation at the time it was happening, I had no impressions of a wheel war, and a favourable impression of a group of admins working to achieve the best solution in a short time. Risker ( talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that my comment was sent to all those who deleted and undeleted the article, just for the sake of making sure it didn't get any worse. I must also congratulate you; you may be the only user to ever be temporarily desysopped and resysopped twice -- that must mean you're doing something right :) Ral315 ( talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been others. NoSeptember 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem in this desyop scenario was excessive haste by both Zscout370 and Jon Harald Søby. Be cool, guys. Relax a notch. Itchy trigger fingers create unnecessary wikipedia drama. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and a bit of patience defuse that. Which everyone seems to have had. But it's better to not have to rely on it. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What was the rationale for protection? I do not think that it is needed. If an article is created with BLP issues, it can be dealt with in the normal manner. Unless you have an objection, I would like to unprotect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I left it at Doran's talk page. However, I advise against unprotecting the article now, since the article is now making the rounds on Yahoo News UK and Ireland. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zscout. All I know is what I read on the Signpost, and what I can dig up through logs and difs, so I'm not sure I really have a good handle on what all happened in this weird situation. But I have to say, you have been amazingly calm and civil, absolutely refusing to be provoked or angry. And for that, I congratulate you. All the best, – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Tyangarin ( talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend by stepping in at the Belarus FAC. I've seen this user's misguided ideas about featured articles before, so I thought I'd try to explain the off topic nature of their opinions and how they belong elsewhere. I'll leave it alone; there's only so much explaining one can do anyhow. ;) Good luck on the FAC! María ( habla con migo) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't apologize; I am just surprised you stepped in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably would have been better to ignore it, I agree. Lesson learned. María ( habla con migo) 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are doing a great job on the Belarusian Republican Youth Union article! – Ilse @ 09:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I know you didn't get the FAR you were looking for, but I don't need a FAR to tell me that it needed to be fixed. I think the problem with this article is when I wrote it for FA over a year ago, the links I used then died. I know the article is smaller than before, but it is more accurate now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, so there is some dispute as to whether Belarus counts as a dictatorship? Sarsaparilla ( talk) 13:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't major at all, but I added it back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it's fair for Lollipop-3. She was still fairly new. ( I love entei ( talk) 09:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

What I would suggest Lollipop3 to do is the following: edit Wikipedia more and if the user has some tallents that they wishes to share with us, she can mention those on their userpage. For example, if she knows a bit of Japanese, they can list what level of Japanese they know. That can apply to any language. I am also an administrator, like Ryulong, but I don't know what parts of their userpage I can restore. But we just need Lollipop to edit us more. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for kindness about Lollipop-3. I remember when I first started I hardly knew what tags did or what they were. And she asked me what tags did what, how to get certain effects, etc. Which shows she is fairly new to Wikipedia. She did try to edit, but she is also new. Which need's to be taken into consideration. ( I love entei ( talk) 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

And that is why I am not doing anything heavy handed at all. Tell the user to also see me too if she needs anything. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if she will come back. She hasn't been on. ( I love entei ( talk) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't blame her if she doesn't. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hrantdinksassassin.jpg. 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 ( talk) 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

have you gotten anything on this Ctjf83 ^talk 08:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not emailed the office, but there are some maps of Iowa we can use, and they already exist on Wikipedia. Just shade in the areas that need to be shaded and you can use those files. Facts, such as districts, cannot be copyrighted by US Law. However, we just cannot use their maps until they give us ok. But that does not prevent us from making our own. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up on waiting for a response from them....so i just need to get the maps off commons and shade in what needs to be shaded in? then just upload them under PD? Ctjf83 ^talk 08:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Upload them under the same license as the maps from the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, trying to recreate these maps is more work then it is worth. Since you said they can't be copyrighted, what can i upload them under? Ctjf83 ^talk 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that certain counties are in a district cannot be copyrighted. However, the presentation of said facts can be copyrighted. You know what, I will do the maps for you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

haha, ok, thanks! i just need the iowa state senate, and iowa state house, not the US house districts....thanks again! Ctjf83 ^talk 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i finally got a response, they said they are not copyrighted, but just wanted to be attributed as the source and want the date Ctjf83 ^talk 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then that is perfect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

so what licenses should i upload it under Ctjf83 ^talk 19:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

what do i put along with {{pd}}? cause i know there has to be a reason it is in the PD, right? Ctjf83 ^talk 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Do this, {{PD-because|The copyright holder stated that their works are in the public domain, but still request credit for the work}}. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Ctjf83 ^talk 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

2 years and Belarus looks like it's set to become a FA. Merry Christmas. 24.64.165.129 ( talk) 18:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the length of your block on this user; I don't believe his actions were worth an indef block; in fact, I'm not sure he violated any policy at all. See my followup in the discussion on WP:AN. -- CastAStone /^/(talk) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

With the way the account was acting, and it only had three edits, I suggest the person get a brand new account. I was notified that he was socking at the time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment at Kazimierz Siemienowicz. There is a new editor who seems well meaning but doesn't seem to understand the concepts of 3RR or reliable and verifiable sources. Plus there is the always present historical and philosophical debate :) PS. And in any case its a fascinating article about a fascinating person :) Check it out if you have time! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for taking care of my recent delete requests. I will probably have a few more, but I want to gather them all up and make sure.

Thanks again!!

-- Mactographer ( talk) 01:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Think I got all the rest of them that need deleting below:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Image:Wedding-rings-02.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Image:Vidai.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Image:Bride-flowergirl-maids.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Image:Dunsmuir-wedding.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Image:Weddingcake-rings.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:St-Ignatius-inside.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Weddingparty.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wedding-toast.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Communion-wedding.jpg

Thanks again for all your help!!

-- Mactographer ( talk) 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and I snagged them all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that ArbCom have not responded to multiple queries about this, despite everyone deleting threads and directing concerns to them. Your solution? Delete the thread and suggest we email ArbCom. You couldn't make it up. Rockpocke t 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is how we dealt with it in the past, and we dealt with this just recently. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that "we" deal with situations we would rather not discuss by purposely directing them to a non-responsive committee? Rockpocke t 09:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with a block similar to AZ's a week ago, where we had to close a thread and send all emails to ArbCom. Keep in mind that this is a holiday time and a new ArbCom is being trained. When I dealt with issues like this in the past, I generally had to wait a day or so before ArbCom mentions anything to me. Most of the time, it is a thanks for sending the information. Generally, we would not be doing this at all, but ArbCom specifically told us to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, if someone has simply of referred queries to that page earlier a lot of time and effort may have been saved. At least that explains the basis for the block. For the record, the deafening silence started in late October, so I don't think the inactivity of the admins can be blamed on the hand-over. Moreover, its somewhat misleading to block him as a "self identified pedophile". He certainly has never identified himself in that way, what appears to have happened is than an admin identified him as a pedophile based on an interpretation of his comments. I think there is an important difference. Nevertheless, that is not a concern for you, it is a concern for the ArbCom. Now, how do we raise this with them...? Oh yeah, by email, the same email they don't respond to... See the problem? Rockpocke t 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the link, you're welcome. I personally believe, after jogging my memory, I might have been involved with this user before. However, I need to check what time in October it was, since this was around the time I dealt with the San Diego Fires and the Milotpia issue. I will personally get in contact with the ArbCom over this and check out the deleted edits myself, since I think that is half of the problem. It might have been said, but it's stored in a place where only admins can look. I will look for you, but it is almost 2 am where I am at now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Its late here too (since I also had to deal with the firestorm, I'm guessing we are not too far away from one another). I am an admin myself and have poked around in the deleted edits to little avail. I'm not really querying the block (hell, I warned A.Z. about pedophilia advocacy myself and have come close to blocking him on a number of occasions), its simply that there is trouble brewing over this off wiki. With the recent allegations of cabalism and email list dealings, the last thing we need is another drama. My feeling is that this is not going to go away, but much of the drama could be averted with a simple explanation of why, privately if need be. Perception is everything, and at the moment the perception is that there must be something to hide because admins are deleting all mention of it and the Arbs are saying nothing to no-one. If you could encourage the Arbs to simply explain to A.Z. their reasoning for blocking him, then I would be very appreciative and could start working towards calming the baying mob. Rockpocke t 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering with the redesigning of the DST shield. Just contact me on my talk page when you are done. Happy New Year, too. XD miranda 10:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		It really was a loooonnnnggg haul with Belarus, but congrats in the end cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely deserved. I was looking for examples of FA countries, to compare current Ukraine entry against and stumbled across Belarus. I couldn't believe it, since last time I checked, it was all covered in pessimism on the FA candidacy page. Well, now it is a good example for Ukraine. Regards, -- Riurik ^(discuss) 03:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you need help for Ukraine, or just advice to write on countries, do ask me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do.-- Riurik ^(discuss) 05:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know whether insignia images like this one Image:OSBIH1998-2005OR9.gif are copyrightable? They were tagged for deletion (and might be deleted already). They came from here [16]. I know this has come up for other military insignia. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends from country to country. In Bosnia's case, no. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in what PR's just spewed forth on ANI. [17] I'd rather bring these personal attacks to your attention than drop yet another NPA notice on PR's talkpage. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Riurik ^(discuss) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fonzie.jpg. 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 ( talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)