User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Huh?

Note: Refers to File:PaintingChix.JPG –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What? Can I please get an explanation, in English please, for why you think I have violated my own copyright? All the pages you point to indicate that you think I've stolen my image from someone else. I took this picture myself with my own camera on my own time. It is not a copyright violation, and as best I can tell, I followed all of wikipedia's rules for attribution and licensing.

I have been in tears for days now because of the harrassment, hassling, and pestering that busybodies have subjected me to and I'm tired of it! Tell me, in English, how to fix it or LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!! Fryede (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty simple situation which can be resolved without much difficulty. The first problem is that the image does not specify a "source"... if you took the picture, then you need to mention that on the image's description page... e.g., "I created this work entirely myself". Right now, we can't tell where the image came from, which can indicate that an image was being used in violation of copyright (although I certainly don't believe this to be the case here).

The other problem is that the image does not have a image copyright tag, which every image needs. These tags indicate the copyright status of the work. In this case, you need to either release the image under a free license or into the public domain. Most images use two free licenses, the same ones that your text contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under... the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (I know... the names are amazingly long). An image which you license under these two licenses can, in short, be used by anyone for commercial or noncommercial uses as long as they attribute you as the image's creator. If you want to license this image under these two free licenses, simply add the following code (including brackets) to the image's description: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}}.

Basically, I am not doubting that you have violated any copyright. The problem in this case is that the image did not have a source (which is easy to add) or, more importantly, a license. Almost all text and images on Wikipedia need to be freely licensed so that they can be reused by others, but since you didn't indicate what licenses the image is available under, we can't tell what the requirements for reusing it are. I hope that that explains it a bit more; my apologies if it was confusing. If you need any more clarification or have other questions, please don't hesitate to ask me... I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's policies on images, so I can probably answer most questions about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the image does have a copyright tag, and has since it was first uploaded. This tag asserts that the uploader is the copyright holder, which seems to be the case. I'm unclear why two different people tagged it for deletion, since I can't see anything wrong with the image description information. This matter is under discussion here. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh... wow. I got confuzzled big-time. It was only lacking a source... if it is self made as the uplaoder says above, then that can be said and that should be good. I'll just go and add that in. My most sincere apologies; I have no idea how I missed the tag which was on it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain + GDFL?

Quick question, as I've been going through reviewing the stuff that slipped by User:DrilBot. If a user claims PD (and it looks legitimate), but the photo also contains the GDFL tag, is the proper solution to remove GDFL altogether and leave it as PD-user? This would mean PD supersedes GDFL+CC. Is this right? --RabidDeity (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very dependant on the situation, I think, which is why I can't have my bot figure out what to do automatically (it ain't all that smart :) ). If the original uploader added both a PD and GFDL/CC tag, I'd say that PD is usually appropriate. However, if the PD tag was added after the image had been tagged for deletion for some reason or if the uploader seems like they might not fully understand what PD really means, I'd take it to WP:MCQ for further discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a note to say how much I like the DRAMA page in the Signpost, particularly with the addition of the {{new item}} template. It's important to get sufficient editor opinions on discussions, as well as to avoid editors feeling that things are decided without adequate publicity; this page really helps with both of those issues. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help! If you ever have any tips on discussions that I might be missing, please let me know so that I can add them in! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Underconstruction tag

Would it be OK if I removed the underconstruction tag on Going Commando? It isn't really being edited anymore. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised it's already been removed. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. :) Sorry for not removing it sooner. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Note: Refers to [1]. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow the URL and license dropped out. I got them in now, and hopefully all's OK. Thanks for catching it. Crum375 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's weird. It looks good now; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

• 125 Featured Articles
• 28 Featured Lists
• 15 Featured Topics

• 28 A-Class Articles
• 321 Good Articles
• 2 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Data suggest an increasing lack of interest
• Featured editor: Masem

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Barstarry thing

Thank you Drilnoth. It's certainly an interesting task. I have at least 3700 articles left to look at and probably 900-1000 images that are virtual duplicates....both of which will keep me occupied for quite a while. All the best - Peripitus (Talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. May I ask how you are finding these? Is there a list, or are you going through articles manually? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

AWB listing of what links to {{extra album cover 2}} -> text file -> local mediawiki install -> page with links -> firefox and lots of open tabs... not the fastest method (I know a well written program could do a side-by-side image display)....but it keeps me off the streets - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Sounds complicated. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit of confusion on my part

Could you explain this? Because the image's source is unidentified as only "flickr", it's impossible to know the copyright status. This shows "no evidence that the copyright holder has released it under the license indicated by the uploader" (which is nonexistant). I'm just a bit confused. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Peripitus has fixed it, but I removed the nopermission tag because you'd added it as a direct speedy deletion tag, rather than through {{di-no permission}}, so it didn't have the needed 7 days. I would have tagged it with the correct no-permission tag except it already had the no source tag. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

CoverCrop.jpg on Classical Music Magazine page

Hi Drilnoth,

Thanks for your judicious editing. I'm a beginner here, so trying my best. I have added a copyright holder to the image homepage and put a tag on the image. Is this enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.84.157 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(responded to below). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CoverCrop.jpg on Classical Music Magazine page

Refers to: File:CoverCrop.jpg. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drilnoth,

Thanks for your judicious editing. I'm a beginner here, so trying my best. I have added a copyright holder to the image homepage and put a tag on the image. Is this enough?

I don't want the image to be non-free content actually. Is there a quick way to indicate that it can be used however people want and rid myself of the ugly tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.84.157 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there are a few things going on here. The main issue, now that you've added the copyright tag, is that the image doesn't have any evidence of permission. Since this image is still copyrighted, the copyright holder needs to be correctly contacted so that they can verify that the image can be used with only attribution. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has details on this process. If you (or the uploader) contact the copyright holder so that they can send an E-mail through Wikipedia:OTRS, as described at the page about requesting permission, then the image will be good. Otherwise it needs to be used under claim of fair use and needs a detailed rationale about why it is needed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Armagnac.jpg

You deleted this image despite the fact that I provided the following: From: richard.ferriere@free.fr Subject: Re: Armagnac 3-view Date: May 4, 2009 2:28:55 AM CDT (CA) To: wzuk1@shaw.ca

Hello,

You are free yo use and modify the drawing to illustrate your paper

Regards

Richard FERRIERE

---

Mail Original -----

De: "Bill Zuk" <wzuk1@shaw.ca> À: "richard ferriere" <richard.ferriere@free.fr> Envoyé: Dimanche 3 Mai 2009 12h27:47 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Armagnac 3-view

Dear Richard

I have just written an article on the Sud-Est (SNCASE) SE-2010 Armagnac and wanted to add a 3-view. I located one of the 3-views on the Wings 2.12 website. Using this drawing as a basis, I made a composite drawing. Is it possible to get your approval to use the original drawing on the website for the composite drawing?

Here are the two (illustrations omitted): Original:

My composite:

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk

FWiW, Now what?... Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

The problem here is that the image is lacking evidence of permission. Specifically, there are two issues: First, we are simply taking your word that this exchange ever happened. Although I'm inclined to assume good faith and trust you, the problem is that enough people post fake permission information like this that proof that the image's creator granted permission is needed. This can be accomplished by following the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The other issue is a bit more serious, however... if this is the exact communication you had with the image's copyright holder, he didn't explicitly release the image into the public domain or under a free license. You said that his response was "You are free yo use and modify the drawing to illustrate your paper". This is not sufficient to assume that the image is public domain or freely licensed, because he hasn't legally released the image as such, even if that was his intention. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission has examples of how to request legal release of the image for free use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is where it gets a bit confusing. I used Richard's drawing as a base drawing, then modified it to become a composite drawing with elements changed, reversed and coloured in. I am sure that he can release his drawing to be a public domain image but nonetheless, my final drawing is significantly different from the original. His site is prominently displayed on the Internet and his email is the same one as is given. The reason for the verbatim quote is that it is his exact words, (sic) and hasn't been altered; I find it odd that people would fake a message, but regardless, I can have Richard actually write to Wikipedia or post on it if required. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Hmm... I see. Well, he will need to send an E-mail to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org as described in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission in order to confirm that he gave permission, and he'll need to explicitly release it under a free license or into the public domain as described there. Your alterations of the work means that it is now a derivative work, but he still holds the original copyright and therefore needs to grant permission. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Wow signal location star field.jpg

Hi -- I think you and/or ImageTaggingBot are being a little sloppy with deleting images. This image is one that I believe I very clearly marked with the proper licensing information. It was quite a bit of work for me to make it, and I didn't bother keeping backups once I'd uploaded the file to Wikipedia. Very unfortunate.--Fashionslide (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All that you had on the page was:

{{Information
 |Description    = background bitmap image needed for [[File:Wow signal location.svg]], which is the source file for File:Wow signal location.jpg
 |Source         = I created this work entirely by myself.
 |Date           = 
 |Author         = [[User:Fashionslide|Fashionslide]] ([[User talk:Fashionslide|talk]])
 |other_versions = 
}}

This is missing one vital thing... a image copyright tag. Is this image public domain? Is it licensed under a free license like the GFDL or a Creative Commons license? Without this information the image can't be freely reused as is required by Wikipedia. If you have some idea as to what copyright tag should be used (see the list at the page I linked to above), the image can be restored with that tag. I can also restore the image temporarily so that you can copy it back to your local computer, but then you shouldn't upload it again until it has a copyright tag. You had it almost right, but unfortunately others can't really guess as to what copyright tag would be appropriate since only you, the copyright holder, can license the image. The most common license, if you just want to use that, would mean adding the code {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image page, which would license it under the GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0 licenses. I'll be happy to restore the image if you determine what license is appropriate or if you want to download it back to your local computer. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please restore it and I'll straighten out the licensing. Thanks. I have no doubt that you're quoting the { { Information } } template correctly. However, I did include licensing information; I just didn't include it inside that template. Once you restore the deleted work, I'll be glad to furnish the licensing information in the form of a bot-readable template as well.--Fashionslide (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done; see File:Wow signal location star field.jpg. I restored the entire history but it didn't have any original text apart from the {{Information}} template... maybe there was a bug in the system? It's happened before. Anyway, you can add the license tag now. Sorry about all this trouble! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe my memory was faulty. In any case, thanks for restoring it. I'll try to whip it into shape.--Fashionslide (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for fixing it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Image licence migration

Why are all of the licences for images on wikipedia being changed?

Is there a good reason for this, or am I just being a cynic, when I say that this change in the image licence is just being used as an excuse to purge wikipedia of images.

Please can you resond to my usertalk page as soon as possible. Dreamweaverjack (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My images all met the guidelines used for uploading images when I first uploaded them in the spring of 2007, and I didn't see the need to change them as nobody told me at the time that there was anything wrong with the way that I had uploaded the images. None of the images that I have ever uploaded onto wikipedia are straight from any website or page source without (in the case of the Scottish football clubs logos - where I listed the source and copyright info) any changes to them, the alterations may be miniscule in some cases, but the images have all been edited in some way before I uploaded them onto the site. Therefore I have the copyright for the images that I have loaded onto wikipedia and no-one else as these images are unique due to my editing of the originals.

The images that relate to this are the Leyland P76 and the Morris Minor MM Series ones. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance, etc

Hi Drilnoth, have you finished with the GM articles I scanned in? As I'd like to take them down now. I did tart up the Pool of Radiance article a bit. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry... I'd been working on other things and those managed to slip my mind. I'll do them today and tomorrow and you can take them down. My apologies! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. Thanks again! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanna GA-ify this one next?  :) I know I do! I'll have to find out if there were any reviews in Dragon and/or WD. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll pitch in whenever I can in between work on the Ratchet & Clank good topic and the Great Copyvio Purge. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll check sometime over the long weekend and let you know what I find. It's about halfway there with sourcing, so another review or two might be all we need. BOZ (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a 3-page review in Dragon #143! They do a good deal of talking the game up, which I can use for the review section, but there's also a lot of info I can use to source and add to the gameplay and other sections. With some work, we might even be able to get this one as good as Planescape: Torment. :) I'm going to start on it now, but I will likely finish later. Feel free to do whatever while I'm not doing anything with it. BOZ (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So far so good? I'm going to try to find a little more time to work on it this evening. BOZ (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it looks great! Sorry I can't help more right now... been busy with other things off of Wikipedia lately. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's OK! I'll say one thing; this review is huge! It contains a ton of valuable info. I've milked it for just about everything I can get for the gameplay and plot sections, and I'm going to write a few paragraphs for the reception section later. I think I'll toss in just about everything that could be worth saying, but I'm probably going to need someone to help me trim it back. :) BOZ (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just dumped a massive ton into the review section - I know it's probably too much, but we can always cut it back. :) There are other Dragon articles which mention Pool of Radiance, so I'll try to get something on them when I find the time. BOZ (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How's it look now? BOZ (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! The reception section might need to be cut down as other reviews are added, but it's great for now. Excellent work citing the plot and gameplay, too! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi,
Now that I've marked up about 2 dozen pages, there are some things I noticed:

1. my eyes are starched (but that's to be expected)
2. After viewing this yuckiness, I think the template would look better if it were flush left, and with *bullets -- yes/no?
3. Rather than gather all the free sources in Category:Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere, what if we permitted people to add an additional prefix to indicate free content AFTER it's been squeezed dry of all it's content; the template will still display it as Free Content, but will no longer aggregate it into the category. That way, the category will (tend to) include only articles that link to free content that has NOT YET FULLY been integrated -- and it will truly become a to-do list.
4. In which case, we will want to include a link to the category within the template, so people can access it easily.
5. Maybe there can be room for an optional Caption= line at the end of the template? Not a biggie.

This is exciting! Thanks for your help. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I hadn't thought that links would be that long. I'll try to wrap it with bullets and maybe enclose the lists with <small></small> tags. Anyway, once something has been squeezed dry of all its usable content, shouldn't it just be removed from the template? Why keep an already-used source there cluttering up the talk page?

Anyway, I'll add in a caption line at the end. Thanks for the feedback! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it now uses small-text bulleted lists and has a comment parameter. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell, I just wrote a nuanced response and deleted it by mistake. That's my cue to stop editing Wikipedia for the night.

First of all, that was a great change. I really like the appearance now.

Second: The reason I favor segregating the squeezed-dry links is because it's really important that the Category be as accurate as possible, and the "structure" I'm proposing seems to be the best way to train the uninitiated to keep it that way.

1. Category needs to be as accurate as possible: In the best-case scenario, a large swath of Wikipedians will come to rely on the resulting category as their to-do list, which could make this page responsible for a lot of Wikipedia's growth. These people would obviously be less productive if they were accidentally directed to a source that could offer no new insights.
2. Current system leads to less-accurate categories: First, there's the risk that someone deletes an item from the list, and someone else restores it (either because he discovers it independently later, or because he sees that all the sources also appear under External Links, and wrongly concludes that the goal is to keep the contents of the two coterminous). Conversely, it will be easier to train people to sort the items correctly if they get in the habit of seeing sources presented differently within the box: "The following public-domain sources contain information that has not yet been integrated into this article" vs. "The following public-domain sources have been thoroughly integrated into this article." When people see that language in a few places, they'll understand what we're asking them to do -- i.e. keep the squeezed-dry stuff out of the to-do category.

Anyhow, my gut says this is the better solution -- but since we won't find out whether this is a problem for a few weeks anyhow, it's not urgent, we could wait to see whether people get it right.

On a separate note, are you averse to putting a hyperlink to the Category somewhere in the margin of the template, so that more people become aware of its existence? Thanks. I'm really so proud of this change. Thanks for being patient with me. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll do this tomorrow (getting to late in the day for me to be confident coding templates like this one :) ). Thanks for all of your feedback! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• That's great. I hope this isn't a path-dependent, high-stakes situation? Because I really don't know what the best way will be to distinguish "squeezed-dry" from "non-squeezed-dry" public sources -- It may be to list them separately; it may be to strike them through; it may be to use a green "Done!" checkbox; etc. The only specifications that seem important (assuming you agree with the reasons I gave above) are that, if users decline to/neglect to remove squeezed-dry sources from the Box, they can nevertheless keep these out of the Category. (Plus, again, a link to the Category in the corner of the box).
• I am having trouble believing that I added 118 pages to the category tonight. Yikes. Is there a word in Wikipedia lingo for OCD editing? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 05:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• OCD editing = Wikipediholic. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I've really enjoyed using the template you created, thanks again. I'm just wondering whether it's possible to include, in the margin, a link to the category of all the pages that contain that template? The other changes can wait for a while, but this little change i think is key for the template to catch on.
Sorry to pester. I'd ask someone else, but I assume you have a sense of ownership in your creation, so I want to make sure you approve of changes. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot about this (been busy off-Wikipedia recently). I've added in a category link and an extra set of parameters... see the documentation. Also, the |free=yes parameter is no longer needed (the definition of |f1=something now covers it). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote things

I added some quotes to the plot section of Ratchet & Clank. Do you think you could take a look at them? Its just some of them are quite long, and I had to add in some [...]s, and I was worried it might be copyvio. If you're too busy, I don't mind, I'll figure it out. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 12:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I don't think that it's really a copyvio here... you're just quoting it, and I don't think that it is too long anyway. I'm sorry I haven't had more time recently to help out... I've been busy with other things. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't think of anything else to say here, so I'll just say thanks. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Bernath CUCKOO.jpg

Hi Drilnoth,

I've been away on business, so didn't know that an image I uploaded (Antonia Bernath CUCKOO.jpg) had been tagged for deletion, and then deleted on 1 July 2009. I've only logged on to Wikipedia today, so apologies for delay on this - it's my first chance to respond to the tagging and request an undelete.

I understand that the reason giving for tagging this image for deletion was "possibly unfree File".

I'm the producer of the British feature film CUCKOO and I am copyright owner in the film. I commissioned and paid the stills photographer who took the photographic image "Antonia Bernath CUCKOO.jpg" and also signed the contract which transfered the rights to me so that stills from the film could be used in the public domain. I also signed the agreement with the actors' agents which transfered image rights to me so that we can release these images into the public domain.

I would like to request an undelete of this file and restoration of previous page because I can confirm that the file is free for use.

Archie424 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I see. That makes this pretty complicated. I'm going to start a section about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions since I'm not sure how situations like this are usually handled... there some others who might know of similar past discussions can comment. If there seems to be a consensus that the image should be restored, I'll be more than happy to. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DRAMA report

I think they're running a little behind this week, but you'll want to get your report done today, if possible (for issue dated yesterday). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Aude missed his slot too, so I think a line has been drawn under that issue. Next Monday's issue is the one to focus on then I guess. Heh. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess. I've been really busy lately and didn't get a chance to work on this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 16#Foxtrotfarscape.png

Just wanted to draw your attention to this discussion- should that image exist? The logs say you never deleted it, the bot says you did. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be because the image was restored since it was deleted. :) Its restoration was discussed at User talk:Drilnoth/Archive 5#foxtrotfarscape deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ping

A discussion you may want to keep an eye on, and/or provide an opinion. BOZ (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ǝɹǝɥdsıɯǝɥ uɹǝɥʇnos ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ sƃuıʇǝǝɹƃ

I created a completely pointless script, User:Plastikspork/flipsummary.js, which adds a link to your toolbox which will attempt to invert the text in the 'edit summary' box. If you press the link twice, it goes back to normal. I created this after seeing someone leave an edit summary with inverted text. It works best with lowercase letters, and I should find a better target for the letter l; perhaps just use the letter l. Now back to work. Plastikspork (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

˙ןooɔ sı uʍop-ǝpısdn oʇ uoıʇıppɐ uı ןʇɹ ʇxǝʇ ǝɥʇ sdıןɟ ʇı ʇɐɥʇ ʎɐʍ ǝɥʇ puɐ 'xoqןooʇ ǝɥʇ uı ʇı ɹoɟ pǝsn ƃuıǝq ʇxǝʇ uʍop-ǝpısdn ǝɥʇ ʎןןɐıɔǝdsǝ 'ʇı ǝʞıן I ˙ʇɐǝu s,ʇɐɥ⊥ ¡ɐH –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch ... my neck. Hekerui (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:AngiotensinCE-1O8A.png

Before deleting images please ensure that you unlink and remove all usage of it. Im cleaning up the mess from File:AngiotensinCE-1O8A.png right now (over 1,500 image use links) thanks β^_command 12:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, User:ImageRemovalBot fixes these automatically, but it seems to have been offline recently. Hmm. I'll keep that in mind until I see that it is going again; sorry about any trouble! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Its a bad idea to get dependent on bots. they are nice but in cases like this should be used as a fall back, not as a primary function. at last count there where 6400 red linked images being used on wp. so bots are not perfect. enjoy :) ♫ β^_command 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Drilnoth, you have new messages at
Talk:Ratchet & Clank

I would have put a real talkback notice here, but these home-made ones have more of a charm, don't they. I suppose I could have waited for you to see the thing yourself, but I was worried you wouldn't see it. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Image reductions

This is just to let you know of the discussion on the image-size reductions discussion. Since you were the one that proposed/supported it, I invite you to this discussion. Currently it's just a one-on-one discussion right now, so I just wanted to let you know if you were still interested in the topic. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; that fell off my radar. I've commented there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

When I find the time...

...it will be done! It's a project that will take some time to finish, but it will happen. I notice you've been branching out more specifically into video game articles lately, so I figured you might be interested in some crossover there. :) It's a damn shame that video game articles are so relatively easy to source, and D&D stuff is so hard! BOZ (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I can't wait to see some of the additions. I agree about the sourcing issues... that's actually part of the reason that I've found VG articles to be more enjoyable to work on... there isn't as much squabbling over the reliability of one source or another when you do get to FAC (in no small part thanks to WP:VG/S!) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance

I need a break - check out what I've done on Pool of Radiance so far. :) BOZ (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! That is looking great. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! There's still a few things left to source, and I'll try to do what I can. I didn't get much help on actually working on the article so far, but other people have pointed me in a direction where I was really able to help myself a ton. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 23, 2009 has its main links wrong - it should be Alien vs. Predator (film) - Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is not for reporting this and Talk:Main Page seems neither. Hekerui (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, some admin saw the mistake. Hekerui (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sprk script

Discussion –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

EATPUT.jpg

File:EATPUT.jpg –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed the file EATPUT.jpg from wikimedia commons. I have two problems, one I am not sure how to get the file back (I am not sure if I still have a copy of it), and two, I am not sure how to properly give the licensing information. I scanned a page from a textbook with permission from the author.Mwv2 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. File:EATPUT.jpg was uploaded to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), just to clarify that. Anyway, the content of the page was: "Scan from a book, fair use", along with {{Don't know}} and {{No license needing editor assistance}}. This image actually had a number of possible copyright problems, based on the page content, the image, and what you've just said. First, it didn't have an image copyright tag, which is required by all images. Assuming that it was a fair-use image, as a scan of a book, then it would also need a fair-use rationale explaining why it means all of the non-free content criteria. Finally, evidence of permission needs to be shown; unfortunately, due to the very large number of users who claim they have permission to upload something even when they don't, we have a process for officially requesting and confirming the permission (if the book is old enough to be in the public domain, you can instead verify this by simply supplying the book's title, which would be a good idea anyway). Wikipedia's copyright policies are probably one of the most complicated areas of the wiki, unfortunately, due to legal concerns.

Anyway, I'll be happy to restore the image if you think that you could fix these issues, although it will be deleted again at some point if they aren't resolved. If you want a copy on your local computer, I'll also restore it so that you can copy it back, but unless you fix these problems you shouldn't upload it again.

I hope that that clarifies things! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Extend left aligned [edit] section links

There has been a request if your [edit] section gadget could work with the editsection for section 0 gadget. It should be fairly easy I think. It's just that firstHeading is outside of bodyContent —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have forwarded this to Cacycle... he completely rewrote the code of the script, and would know more how to fix this at this point. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Nevinny

File:V nevinn.jpg –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I took the picture of an actor from the corresponding article in Russian Wikipedia. What should I do next? JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to link to the page on the Russian Wikipedia where it came from and add an appropriate image copyright tag, which should match the license used on ru.wp. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Rain

File:Gavin rain painting detail3.jpg –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - added copyright status to gavin_rain_painting_detail3.jpg on the Gavin Rain page. Would you mind checking it out to see if all is in order now? Thanks Dave gurney (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly better, however, there is still one problem: We need evidence that you received permission to release this image under that license. Unless you obtain permission from the artist, the image is still copyrighted and so you wouldn't be able to release it under a free license. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has details on how to go about this. In the meantime, I've added a tag indicating this to the image page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Drilnoth, Read the page and sent the permissions that I obtained from the artist through to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is this correct? Dave gurney (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that that is how it works, yes. If you don't get a response in a few days feel free to let me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ok should I leave the tag up in the mean time while they get verified then?Dave gurney (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You could probably remove the tag and add {{OTRS pending}} to indicate that you sent the email. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ok added {{OTRS pending}} to each of the file pages. - Dave gurney (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Posts

Please stop posting to my talk page, I get the picture. Dreadstar † 18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay; sorry. When I notice your name in the future I'll try and remember to uncheck the "notify initial contributor" box. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect tag?

Hello Drilnoth

Your tagging for the deletion of Birra Korca poster might be wrong

This poster exist on public domain of Wikipedia, Albanian Pages:

Check this out: http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Domain_publike_-_Foto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birrakorcausa (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the image in question? I'm not sure which one you are talking about. Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter 2009 impact

Why did you delete the two images? I have not had time to deal with the equally stupid allegations of copyright vio issue yet you act as though you are the sole arbiter of such things. Get a life. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why don't you discuss things with other editors before acting???? You just waste other people's time. There is NO copyright violation with those two images. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 30k + contributions are nothing to be proud of especially when most of them seem to be aimed at upsetting people and causing them more work. Brilliant! You have been on Wp "for 8 months and 28 days". And you have done that many edits??? You really should get out more especially when those edits are on thing about which you have clearly no knowledge whatsoever.Albatross2147 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I am really very upset with what you have done. I am actually thinking of withdrawing from Wp and ending my financial contributions. Reading through your archives it is clear that you have some sort of ego issues and you are a bully. Please delete those delete tags on the two images and give me some time to get the permission emails in which if you looked at Wesley's site would show there is unlikely to be any issue over copyright at all. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • In fact I am so upset with you and your history of peremptory actions and your clearly flawed understanding of what constitutes a copyright violation my Parthian shot may well be to campaign to get you removed as an Admin and even stopped from editing Wp at all. Reading through just a bit of your correspondance with various editors it is clear that you have some real issues. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. And you don't need to go talking to other editors about it before I've even responded. Let me explain; calling for removal of admin status and/or banning without first even hearing the user's reasons is pretty drastic. Now, here are the issues that I think the image in question has (there is only the one, right? File:Anthony-wesley-homebrew-telescope-IMG 2785-s.jpg? That's all that I saw on your talk page):

It has two problems in my opinion. The first is that it doesn't have a image copyright tag. Therefore, we can't tell if this image is Public Domain, cc-by-sa-3.0, or what. This is required so that other people can reuse the images on Wikipedia. Additionally, it lacks evidence of permission; simply saying that someone gave you permission isn't enough to prove it, unfortunately, because of the number of users who falsely claim permission. The process for "officially" confirming permission is outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If the website where the image was found indicates a free license, that works too if you provide a link (right now, I'm not able to locate the image on the web if that's where it came from because you didn't include a URL).

Anyway, there's no need to get angry about it. I'm just trying to help the encyclopedia, the same as you, I'm just working in a different area. The image could probably be fixed easily enough... the notes that I left on your talk page provide plenty of details on how to do this, and it may have taken less time than all of these posts here. I also feel that if you look at all of the conversations in the various archives on the page, you'll find that although I do get many complaints about my image tagging, these are often resolved easily and with understanding on both sides or I post to explain whatever I feel is wrong with the image and then there is never a response. If you can provide some links about bullying or anything like that, by all means do so, since I may have made a mistake.

Thank you, –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Like most people who sprinkle their talk posts with "assume good faith" you don't practice it at all. Going around tagging/removing stuff that conflicts with your idea of what is copyright or not particularly without discussing anything with the other editors seems to me to be very bad form and has no value at all. There are degrees of copyright violation and if some tags are missing then a gentle prod would be enough in most cases to get things regularised without vandalising the articles in question. In the present case the images really added something to the articles. Your removal of the two images has taken something away from the user experience (and the fact that you do not realise that you deleted two images and not one shows that you are quite careless of the consequences of your actions). Is that what you want to achieve? You should really consider taking a Wikibreak and maturely reviewing the value of your contributions. The fact that you clearly get some buzz out of acting out a role as a vigilante is quite problematic. I would be interested to see any evidence of your expertise in international intellectual property law posted on your user page.

As I have said I am very upset by your actions generally (not just in the present case) and I shall consider my future involvement here carefully as people of your ilk seem to be taking over. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please post links to evidence of the behavior that you're accusing me of; if I've made a real mistake or acted improperly, please accept my most sincere apologies. If you indicate what the problem was, I'll try to avoid it in the future. Anyway, I'm still not sure which two images you are talking about... I tagged the one image for deletion, but I did not delete it or remove it from an article. The tag I added gives the uploader (you) a note about the nomination so that you can fix it, or it will be deleted in 7 days; certainly that is enough of a prod. If you're talking about a different pair of images (in other words, the ones that I didn't discuss above), please indicate their names so that I know more about what you are referring to. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do hope you are not being deliberately obtuse. If you check the article history you will notice that within seconds of the tags you put on the images they were deleted from the article by, it would fair to assume on the balance of probablilities, you or one of your sock puppet-like D 'n' D pals acting anonymously.

I am afraid that the constant litany of posts here by other aggrieved editors convinces me that it would be worth the effort to try to have you and your mindless bot banned from Wp. I note with interest that you have not addressed my other queries especially the one regarding your expertise in the area of intellectual property. (Please note there is no need to deface my talk page with your talkback tag as I am watching this page.) Albatross2147 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I had not seen those edits. This is not me. If you need proof, the collapse box below contains an excerpt of my contributions, from the same timeframe as that IP's edits.

Extended content

# 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User:Dmcafee/JWpage ‎ (Tagging Image:Jasen1.gif which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Dmcafee ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Jasen1.gif. using TW) # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Jasen1.gif ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Titusdesign.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m Arthur Frederick Dicks ‎ (Tagging Image:Titusdesign.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hautforte ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Titusdesign.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pepeonbass ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Roads_shot_02.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Roads shot 02.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pepeonbass ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Roads_shot_02.jpg. using TW) # 17:08, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Roads shot 02.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Roads shot 03.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Jim-jonsin.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:AndrewDip ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Jim-jonsin.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:AndrewDip ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Jim-jonsin.jpg. using TW) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Jim-jonsin.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Soundslikewill ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Steve_Miller_Band_396.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Steve Miller Band 396.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Tree1983 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:LENTICULE_Disc.JPG. using TW) (top) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:LENTICULE Disc.JPG ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Steven sharpe ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Muslumaydogan.jpg. using TW) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Muslumaydogan.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m Müslüm Aydoğan ‎ (Tagging Image:Muslumaydogan.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Steve Miller Band 391.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:07, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Soundslikewill ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Steve_Miller_Band_391.jpg. using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Muslumaydogan.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m Müslüm Aydoğan ‎ (Tagging Image:Muslumaydogan.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Steven sharpe ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Muslumaydogan.jpg. using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:GGF LOGO FINAL sm.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m The Glenn Gould Foundation ‎ (Tagging Image:GGF LOGO FINAL sm.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Adamlazz ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:GGF_LOGO_FINAL_sm.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Adamlazz ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:GGF_LOGO_FINAL_b.jpg. using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:GGF LOGO FINAL b.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m EZCorp ‎ (Tagging Image:Ezcorp logo.gif which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Wwandsumww ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Ezcorp_logo.gif. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:06, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Ezcorp logo.gif ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Wwandsumww ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Friedmansjewelers.jpg. using TW) # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m Friedman's Inc. ‎ (Tagging Image:Friedmansjewelers.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Friedmansjewelers.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:BBDys ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Bitches_With_Wolves.jpg. using TW) # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Bitches With Wolves.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Loudes13 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Dr_Eric_Wallce.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Dr Eric Wallce.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m RKON Technologies ‎ (Tagging Image:Rkon.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Rkon.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Dbrouwer ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Rkon.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:V nevinn.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:JackofDiamonds1 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:V_nevinn.jpg. using TW) # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Smash The Control Machine.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:05, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:J-SAW ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Smash_The_Control_Machine.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Sansonic ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Saira_khan.gif. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Saira khan.gif ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Consuelo Iznaga Clemens.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Izzy1911 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Consuelo_Iznaga_Clemens.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Dave gurney ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Gavin_rain_painting_detail3.jpg. using TW) # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m Gavin Rain ‎ (Tagging Image:Gavin rain painting detail3.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW) # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Gavin rain painting detail3.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Faizswati ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Aloch.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:04, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Aloch.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:03, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Deathgrindcore666 ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:AGATG.jpg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:03, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:AGATG.jpg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:03, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:MiloSoft ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Pivotxlogo.svg. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:03, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Pivotxlogo.svg ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:03, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Comparison of Grading System.JPG ‎ (This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD. using TW) (top) [rollback] # 17:03, 23 July 2009 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Luiboowee ‎ (Notification: Deletion of File:Comparison_of_Grading_System.JPG. using TW) (top) [rollback]

If that isn't evidence enough, feel free to request at checkuser on my IP address, although I can guarantee that it won't find anything as there is no relation between myself and that IP user.

Anyway, to answer your other question. No, I don't do anything in real life related to intellectual property. I simply have the basic understanding of it needed for this area of Wikipedia, and I tagged the images for deletion according to Wikipedia guidelines. This is all that is needed. If you had any other questions that I missed, please feel free to reask any such questions (you've posted a lot here, and I've forgotten some of it). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it was not you (or your associates) that deleted the images from the article. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

'This is an email I have sent to donate@wikimedia.org'

"I normally make a donation to your fund raisers but this time I am not going to and in fact I am on the verge of leaving Wikipedia.

This is due to the recent actions of User:Drilnoth an administrator and his mindless robot. Why on earth you allow w*nkers like him to be involved in Wp is quite beyond me. All he does is cause grief and unnecessary work for consientious editors like myself (Albatross2147)"

Honestly you have made this an unpleasant place to be.

Albatross2147 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

@Albatross2147: Drilnoth performs valuable work and if you look through this talk page and its archives you will find many cases where Drilnoth has very patiently explained to editors what is required when images are uploaded. Stop and think about what is likely to happen many times every day: There are millions of pictures on the Internet and elsewhere, and anyone can upload a copy to Wikipedia. In response, there is an industry here (see WP:C) dedicated to protecting Wikipedia from legal problems (and promoting ethical practices). I have often wondered if the image upload process is purposely difficult because if there were a button labeled "Click here if it's all good", 99% of people would click that button and there would be effectively no impediment to copyright infringement. It is frustrating when a good article is hit with ugly tags, but it is unavoidable. I have no idea whether Drilnoth made a mistake in this case (my guess is "no"), but I can assure you that Drilnoth is not "mindless". Again, have a look at the patient and detailed responses on this talk page to indignant people who do not understand why or how they need to comply with the copyright policy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherry gallery images at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23

For the multiple book covers you listed for deletion, perhaps it would have been better to handle this with a centralized discussion (or at least several centralized discussions, one per article) over whether or not to include these galleries, and then after reaching consensus to remove them there the images could be removed and deleted as orphaned non-free media? That seems like it would be less messy than creating over 50 FFD discussions, most of which will probably never be responded to individually. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I kind of realized that afterwards. :/ Anyway, consensus in the guideline at WP:NFC indicates that galleries are generally looked down upon, so I don't think that there is a real policy issue, but having batch nominations would have been better. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rkon.jpg

I am the author of the Rkon.jpg that you tagged for deletion. I tried to upload it again with the correct copyright tag, but your message for deletion still remains. Can you assist? Dbrouwer (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)dbrouwer

That's because the image actually wasn't deleted; I just nominated it for deletion. Anyway, I've fixed File:Rkon.jpg by adding a fair-use rationale to it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Dbrouwer (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC) dbrouwer

Happy to help; let me know if you have any other questions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance

Hey there, busy anymore?  :) Got any help to lend to good ol' Pool of Radiance? :) BOZ (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ayup, still busy... but I should have a bit more time. I'll work on Pool of Radiance while Ratchet & Clank is waiting in the GAN queue. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! I was hoping so, which is why I suggested it when I did. :) I'd ask Peregrine, but he'll probably be busy with the EttBP FAC. Eh, I'll ask him anyway. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for you at the article's peer review. :) BOZ (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Seems that right when I thought I would start having more time, other stuff pulled me away again. :/ Ah, well. I'll help out where I can. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's OK - believe me, I know the feeling. :) BOZ (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Albatross2147

See the departing personal attack here. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

request to withdraw one image deletion nomination

Would you please withdraw the last image deletion nomination you made today? It groups together multiple images regarding books by five different authors, five different articles, with different rationales for inclusion / removal. The explanation you give is the same as used for discussions of multiple images within a single article, and it doesn't really make sense here. Almost all the comments so far are just repetition of comments on earlier nominations, which makes me wonder how many people have even checked out the individual situations. Better, I think, to resubmit these broken down by author/article. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current format for Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23#7 other book covers... my reasons for deletion are basically the same on all of them, and I didn't combine into that nomination any where they were different. You can always support some nominations for deletion and oppose others, but needing to comment in 7 different places seems excessive. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Hello,

You recently deleted File:Nasrallah.jpg, citing this discussion. I'd just like to know how one person saying the image should be deleted constitutes consensus on the topic, because I really don't think it should. Mnmazur (talk)

There were actually two users supporting deletion (Spartaz and Peripitus). Additionally, deletion discusions are not votes and are instead determined based on the strength of the various arguments presented; in this case, I feel that the delete !votes were more grounded in policy than your own (no offense intended), as previous consensus in many discussions has shown that just because a free image of a person can't be found doesn't mean that one couldn't be made or that a copyright holder of a non-free image won't release it under a free license; therefore, it is replaceable, as Peripitus describes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for the clarification. Mnmazur (talk)

Birra Korca

Hi Drilnoth.

i would have done the linkage if i was that savvy. Still working on it.

I am talking about these pages: The one that you did mark for deletion is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birra_Korca_poster.jpg from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birra_Korca

This photo is taken from:

http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeda:Birra_Kor%C3%A7a.JPG

which exist in this public domain:

http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Domain_publike_-_Foto

I think that the confusion comes from the letter "ç" which do not exist in english language boards

Birrakorcausa (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Bkorcausa 18:43, 23 July 2009 (ETC)

Aha, I see. Do you happen to know what year the image was originally released in? That might make things much easier. As it stands, the image on Wikipedia is tagged as being non-free, and therefore it would need to meet all of the non-free content criteria. However, the image at sq.wikipedia is indeed tagged as Public Domain. The sq copy doesn't contain much information however... I don't know their guidelines and policies, but on the English Wikipedia more information is needed than just {{PD}}, which is all that is being used there. With all of these in mind, I'm going to raise the issue at media copyright questions for further input, because of the en/sq differences. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that this poster was uploaded here in November 9 of 2007.

Data/Koha Përmasat Përdoruesi Koment e tanishme 9 Nëntor 2007 11:39 381×545 (31 KB) Xixa (Diskuto | kontribute)

From my knowledge poster should had been made late sixties the early seventies when Albania was a communist country and everything (including this poster belonged to the state.I remember seeing it everywhere growing up. It looks like a cheap imitation of St. Pauli Girl. And this must be the reason that there is no much info in sq.wikipedia Regarding sq.wikipedia on the poster page it says:

Licensimi (the licence )

"Ky skedar gjendet në licencen Domain publike. Përdorimi i tij nën kushtet e kësaj licence është i lejuar kjo d.m.th është i lejuar në të gjitha projektet e Fondacionit Wikimedia.

Translation: This poster exist under the public domain license. The use under this license is permissible,this can be used on all projects of Wikimedia foundation.

sq.wikipedia has exact the same rules and policies as en.wikipedia

Regards

Birrakorcausa (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay; at this point I really don't know how this is handled. I've posted a request for further comments, and will remove the deletion tag in the meantime. My apologies for this trouble! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understandingBirrakorcausa (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I just thought I should tell you that Ratchet & Clank is under review, uh, you probably knew already, just I thought you might be busy. I never noticed it myself until today. I asked this guy I know called Vicenarian to do it. I've said more that is really necessary, so I'll stop. Sorry if you knew, I know you almost definately did know, but I take any opportunity to leave messages and thus get my edit count up. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 13:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've been busy (I thought that I was going to have more time off soon but nooo). I would have seen it on the watchlist, but thanks anyway! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop critiscising [sic] yourself for not having enough time! BTW, whatever you do, don't look at Ratchet: Deadlocked. I've made a mess of it so I can re-arrange it later. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You made me look. :) It looks much better right now (didn't read the whole thing, but glanced over it). Not as much in-detail game-guidey stuff now. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't have added the link. I had to merge two separate sections into the gameplay, so it's pretty long. And that's without any mention of challenge mode. But so is TOD's gameplay. I'll try to fix it now. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 09:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File copyright problem with File:Wikipedia user Until It Sleeps's edit times.png

The image in question is a screenshot of a userscript generated stats box. Would {{Cc-by-sa}} work for something like this? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd say that {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} would be good. Since the code is on Wikipedia, the code is under that license, so presumably anything that it generates would be, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Arellano-felix.jpg - Response

Thanks for your edit about this at User_talk:Rob99324#File_source_problem_with_File:Arellano-felix.jpg. I have responded there so as not to fragment the discussion. Cheers, Rob99324 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(responded to at User talk:Rob99324) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi, Wikipedia:Deletion review was very specific about discussing deleted content with the deleting admin first. I hope you don't mind me coming here. I believe File:Jaynemansfield.jpg met all the NFCC criteria, despite a very judgmental and ambiguous note from another editor, every issues raised was resolved. May I ask where it failed? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw a number of problems left. First, the image is replaceable. Using a non-free image of a person simply because it was an important event isn't really justified if there are freely available pictures... free images should almost always be used when showing what a person looks like, so it failed WP:NFCC#1. Even though the particular image may have been important to her career, it can generally be described in text and free replacements already exist. I think that it also failed WP:NFCC#8... your reasoning was that "the existence of all art/promotional work can always be understood without an image. The impact/context can never be understood without an image.", but I don't think that that is really accurate... impact and context can easily be described in text as well as existence. With free images available and no strong reason for why the image is needed (no offense intended; I'm just stating my reading of all the comments), deletion was the appropriate course of action. With that said, if you still believe that the image should have been kept, feel free to open a WP:DRV; I won't object to such a discussion, but thanks for asking me here first. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hello, Can you delete article Puerto Rico Museum of Art? Another article by almost the same name (Museum of Art of Puerto Rico) had already been created that addressed the same subject. Please see their Talk/Discussion pages for more information. Thanks, Rob99324 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have a good bit of different content... would a WP:HISTMERGE be okay so that content from the deleted one can be incorporated into the kept one? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the two should be merged. I propose it be under the name Museum of Art of Puerto Rico, which is the correct translation from the original Spanish language name for that institution.

I am not a merge expert (prefer to contribute content only). If someone else wants to take on the task, great! Take care,Rob99324 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done, histmerge complete. The page history of Museum of Art of Puerto Rico now contains the history of both that article and Puerto Rico Museum of Art; you can use content from the latter in the current article, all of which can be found in the page history, to expand the article. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pathfinder Module J4.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pathfinder Module J4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you cracking up now? ;) BOZ (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth, you need to stop that! It's getting out of control. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, heh heh... :) BOZ (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins! Hekerui (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

File:He wasnt screenshoot.png, File:Complicated Video ScreenShoot.png, File:Girlfriend Video ScreenShoot.png, File:Hot VideoScreenShoot.PNG, File:IWU VideoScreenShot.PNG, File:Mhe_screenshot.png, File:Nh screenshot.png, File:WYG VideoScreenShot.PNG

Hello,

What should I do next? Tell me please! (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've listed my concerns about the images at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 28. You can comment here on their possible deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To visually identify the music videos of the Avril's songs in the section Music video of the articles. I think this images totally discribes some scence from videos. (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I meant to say "t"here not, here. :/ My bad. I'll just post a note at the discussion so that the closing administrator sees this. Anyway, take for example, File:He wasnt screenshoot.png, used in the article He Wasn't. In this case, the image can be described easily enough with words (currently, "There are scenes where she dances around wearing white gloves, a pink skirt, and holding a magic wand (she is portraying a fairy)"), and I feel that the image fails point 1 of the non-free content criteria because the picture seems decorative and replacable by a free equivalent (the current text), and point 8 of the criteria doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article. It seems decorative, and unless it "significantly increases the reader's understanding", per the criteria, it is not an appropriate use of a non-free image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

and what should I do? can make the image smaller resolution and quality? seems to me that a representative screen shots from the music videos for a songs does add to reader understanding about the topic, and is encyclopedically valuable. (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing the image size wouldn't make any difference, although their size will need to be reduced if they are kept. That's not what I'm worried about; I just think that they fail WP:NFCC with their current fair-use rationales. If you think that they should be kept, you can comment at the discussions. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I bring you attention to...

the issue at discussion here. Your input would be valued. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Let'sDoThislive.jpg

I want to know why Let'sDoThislive.jpg was deleted??? Please respond. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded in next section. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Image

I really want to know why Image:Let'sdothislive.jpg was deleted. It is a screenshot and was listed as such. Please respond. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I guess that that one was a mistake. I think that I'd assumed that the image was tagged as being usable under a free license. My bad. I will restore the image. My apologies! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's O.K. Everyone makes mistakes, and thank you for restoring the picture. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for pointing it out to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ambar Siar.jpg

A file from the article Malik Ambar was deleted even as the editor/myself had quoted relevant sources, not one but two, to make sure that the file is not deleted. The file went for speedy deletion without intimidating the editors. I found out it was not the editor who I suspected to have deleted the image, it was you. Kindly let me know why the file was deleted. Looking for a quick response. Nefirious (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#what is and is not appropriate_behavior; to avoid splitting the discussion, I think that we should keep everything centralized there, where I have already explained my reasons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And now we have this, which is not in quite the right place. If it's overwritten in 45 minutes' time, then I'll try to do a procedural nom to reinstate it. Can I take it that "discussion with the deleting admin" has occured? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Britisharmy.JPG

I'm still not clear about fair use, but File:Britisharmy.JPG is a screenshot from a BBC tv program, and is not being used in relationship to the program or the BBC but in the article Tracer ammunition -- how is that fair use? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that the image can't really be used in this case, and I'll be tagging it as such (it effectively has no fair use rationale anyway). I'd say that this image was uploaded as such because of misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty serious ones, look at his edits here: [2]. Thanks for tagging it. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantas logos

Could you restore File:1968 Qantas Logo.png and File:Qantas.svg please ?

Firstly, because they were only removed from the article Quantas by J Milburn (talk · contribs) at 18:22 on 27 July 2009, so were not eligible for CSD under WP:CSD#F5 until seven days after that time.

Secondly, because in showing the logo development for a major international flag-carrier, viz. the national airline of Australia, it is my view that they do contribute significantly to the understanding conveyed by the article; in addition to being a situation where, according to WP's attorney, fair use is not likely to be a legal problem. Jheald (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; here's what I've done. I've restored the images, because as you said they were deleted too early. My apologies for missing this; I'm guessing that they had been tagged for an earlier date than they should have been (and I can't check the date that the tags were added on for every image because it would take way to much time, and there are also way to many backlogs to deal with). However, I agree completely with J Milburn's reason for removing the images from the article. I will nominate them both for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion, so that they can be properly discussed (F5 shouldn't be being used as a way to circumvent deletion discussions). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth, I'm not sure what you want me to say. Jheald is once again Wikilawyering and arguing the toss in an attempt to keep any and all content that is non-free. My actions were valid- I removed non-free images that did not meet our policies, then tagged them for deletion as they were orphaned. This wasn't an attempt to "beat the system"- I'm not going to leave an article in a terrible state while we wait several days for an image to be deleted- that's the worst kind of bureaucracy. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, that was the date that the images were first removed from the article. "Restarting the count" just because they were inappropriately added back is a waste of time, and leaves inappropriate content sitting on our servers for even longer. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies the deletion date. Still, my feeling is that if the removal of an image without discussion is contested, then it should be discussed at the appropriate venue (in this case, FFD). Understand that I agree (completely) with your position on the use of these images; I just feel that it should be discussed first at FFD (or, if appropriate, PUF). I honestly think that it is a tough situation... keeping an image in an article in a way against our policies for seven days is problematic, yes. So is, IMHO, removing those images without discussion. It's a tough choice, but I think that discussions are typically better... then they can be more easily contested by others without causing too much drama. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense generally, the trouble is that there are an awful lot of these logos being abused- FFD just isn't built to handle them all. All's well that ends well I suppose, and if these images are FFD I suppose I can consider that particular issue resolved. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Batch nominations, perhaps? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No MOVE option available

Hello Drilnoth, last week we went back and forth on this subject(User_talk:Drilnoth/Archive_6#Request_for_deletion). While I am not ready to do merges quite yet, I've ventured into MOVES. For example, I moved Osiel Cárdenas to Osiel Cárdenas Guillen (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osiel_C%C3%A1rdenas&action=history) to provide the full name in the title and also to provide consistency with the information in the article itslef.

Well, I have another move to make. This one is Joaquín Guzmán to Joaquín Guzmán Loera. However, I cannot do it because I found no MOVE tab in the Joaquín Guzmán article. Do you know why this is, and what can be done in this case to accomplish the move? Thanks! Rob99324 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was indefinetely move-protected by User:BorgQueen. I'm not sure why, so you should probably ask them about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit for Pool

One of the things that was stressed heavily in the peer review for Pool of Radiance was that the article be thoroughly copyedited, preferably more than once. I know you're a busy guy, but what could I do to obtain the services of someone from the Copyeditors Guild? :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I won't have time today because of Real Life™, but tomorrow looks like it will be pretty free. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! I have some work to do on it, but shouldn't be so much that a copyedit can't be done now. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm done working on the article for now, so basically I think I'll be ready to nominate for GA after a proper copyediting.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Great work. I'm surprised I wrote such a poor sentence; I think I was saying the opposite of what I was trying to say, so hopefully I fixed that up properly now.

Here's the deal with the "Amiga Action" review, or at least what I remember of it. (I can't look at it from here, but you can feel free to check it out to see how accurate what I'm saying is.) The Amiga version of Pool was apparently released a year and a half or more after the original release. By then, there were already other games, such as Champions of Krynn, floating around from SSI. At least one of the reviewers had taken quite a liking to Champions, so by the time Pool became available he was not struck with the "Wow, look how new and different this is!" vibe, because to him the game was already too similar to Champions, and less fun. He had a different perspective than most people because of the late release of the Amiga version, and his review reflected that. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks much better now! I just really hadn't been able to figure out the sentence because of the wording. Thanks! I'd say that unless there are other concerns left from the PR, this is ready for GAN. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It could use one more image - see the WP:VG talk page for specifics. Other than that, I believe I answered everything in the peer review. :) BOZ (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An FFD

Howdy. You might be interested in my suggestion on an FFD you recently commented on. I do understand your logic, but I think my suggestion might be a bit better. Feel free to share your opinion on my suggestion.--Rockfang (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. If the discussion is closed as keep, would the admin do the resizing?--Rockfang (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can resize it; I'm watching the FFD page, so I'll see when it closes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot help for Future templates

A bot would certainly be useful, should it be decided to deprecate the templates (And since I'm the one that started the discussion, I'm not the one who is going to decide on that). One thing that should be noted, tho, is that a lot of these templates use corresponding categories (Template:Future album uses Category:Upcoming albums, etc.), and those should be retained when the template is removed from an article. Sometimes a template uses more than one category, depending on the parameters given, which also needs to be considered. I could make a list of which templates use which categories, if that helps. --Conti|✉ 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I hadn't really thought about that, but I don't think it would be too hard with AWB. It actually has a built-in "add category" function that would work if there is only one applicable category for each template, although if parameters determine a category it could be problematic. Well, the bot would still be able to get most of them. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think only Template:Future television uses different categories for different parameters. Come to think of it, this might be a bit more complicated than that, too, as most of the future templates allow for sortkeys for the corresponding categories. I can imagine that it would be quite complicated to implement that in AWB, but then again, I'm definitely no bot-expert. --Conti|✉ 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sortkeys shouldn't be too hard to deal with; no promises, but if there is consensus to deprecate the templates I should be able to create the correct RegEx find & replace code needed to go through at least most of the templates. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm sure someone at Wikipedia:Bot requests will be able to take care of the rest, if there'll be any need to. :) --Conti|✉ 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

{{refideas}} back in the spotlight

Hi Drilnoth,

If you have patience to read a large block of text, I've seeded a discussion at the village pump miscellaneous page, regarding {{refideas}}, here which you might want to contribute to. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded there; thanks for the note. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

List of dieties

List of Dungeons & Dragons deities –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may! :)

The trickiest part about the current list is that it was set up from a very-much 3E-perspective, when there have been deities in the game ever since Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. I think the best way to set up this page is, as I have been championing for all D&D articles for some time, as an edition-by-edition publication history. For example, you'd have Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (in a prose-list form perhaps?) to represent the pre-AD&D stance, then you'd have the original Deities and Demigods for 1E, the 2E Legends & Lore and Monstrous Mythology, and so on. FR, DL, and GH have their own setting specific lists already (which should probably also be set up this way), and other settings would be footnotes in the main list. Thoughts? BOZ (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a single list which would encompass all of the game's major deities, from all the settings. The inclusion criteria would be something like "A deity in any edition's core rulebooks, a greater deity in any setting's core rulebooks, or a deity which has otherwise played a major role in a video game, novel series, or supplement (e.g., the focus of said source)." I'm going to do some experimenting; let me know what you think then. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-3E, to the best of my recollection, did not list deities in the core rulebooks, so if you take what I listed and add the 3E/4E core books, you'll be all good.  :) Whatever books you don't have, I can supplement. BOZ (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point; sounds good. I'm just hoping that we can make one, good, list of the deities so that we can redirect all of those ones that are just going to be AFD'd at some point anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to gameing sites

Hi.

Just wanted to let you know that WP:VG/EL states that it is not appropriate to like to "1up, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy and other commercial video game news and reviews sites" as it can be seen as promotion for such sites. That's why I reverted the addition of such links on Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I hadn't been aware of that. As I said, IGN has a lot of information with screenshots, etc., that Wikipedia can't because of its policy, so I thought it would be reasonable (those sources are also acceptable as references). Feel free to revert my revert, if you haven't already. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME?

Hi can you please explain why you deleted an image that I uploaded without informing me before or after you deleted it!!!!!! You can flash your little administrator badge around all you want but when you abuse your powers then I can take them away from you.

Please respond ASAP or you WILL lose your administrator status. DB9 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I can only assume that you are referring to File:Zero Kazama.jpg (if this is incorrect, please let me know which image you are referring to). The image was deleted after a discussion of which you were notified when it started. The consensus at the discussion was to delete the image; if you feel that it was deleted in error, feel free to start a deletion review of it. However, you were notified that the image may be deleted; perhaps you just didn't see the message? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me

Hi I am tuopuo, please tell me how to upload pictures in wikipedia with resourses.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuopuo (talk • contribs)

Hello Tuopuo, welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia:Uploading images contains details on how to properly upload a picture or other image to Wikipedia. If you read through that and follow the instructions there, you shouldn't have any problems. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded an image "A street view of Barakahu".I captured it from my mobile phone.What should I do for its resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuopuo (talk • contribs)

Ah, I see. You're asking about File:A street view of barakahu.jpg and wondering what was wrong with it, right? This is pretty simple: The image didn't have an image copyright tag. If you took the image, it must be made available under a free license to allow its use on Wikipedia, which also means that the image can be reused by anyone for any purpose. Since you didn't specify a license, we can't tell how the image may be reused; look at the image copyright tags page a linked to above and choose an appropriate free license, and I'll restore the image with that license. (also, where on Wikipedia was the image being used? It's pretty low quality, and if a higher resolution image already exists then I'd just use that one). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact - Citation needed

If you really have to change {{Fact}} to {{Citation needed}} - which was one of the less brilliant moves of the last few months, at least use capitals: "Citation needed". Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a built-in general fix of WP:AWB. Personally, I prefer it uncapitalized, but I understand that this may be a minority view. I'll make a request at WP:AWB/B that this be changed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:West sea barrage.png

Please remove the file File:West sea barrage.png. This file should be deleted. I uploaded it in error before getting approval as per the discussion page on the Nampho Dam article. I removed the link in the article but wasn't able to fine the delete file button. :) Thanks in advance. --kev. (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. In the future, you can request that an admin delete an image you uploaded by adding {{db-g7}} to the file description page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Drilnoth. kev. (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Images in the article: One Terrible Day

Thank you for your valuable advice. Regarding the following two files, which you courteously marked for speedy deletion:

File:Jackie Condon in One Terrible Day.jpg

File:Jack, Lincoln, Dotys.jpg

I think I've fixed them. Please check them and see if I've done it properly. If so, could you kindly unmark them? And if I still need to do something else, could you please advise me further?Perry Hotter (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! The images have a much more complete description now. I don't see any problems with them; thank you for adding the complete copyright information. You can remove any remaining tags about their deletion, although I see you already removed the ones on the image pages themselves. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful

I undid your edit to Darwin Joston. You/your bot eliminated so-called "duplicate" footnotes. These references are necessary because they support different points in different sentences. Without these citations, someone could easily (and justifiably) come along and slap "citation needed" flags on the sentences without footnotes. There are very few verifiable, published/broadcast sources about the article's subject, and I have used all of the available, verifiable sources that exist at this time. In this article, citing the same source twice in a row (again, to support different facts) is not only necessary, but is also the most responsible thing to do (if you care about the integrity of the article, that is).

Sullenspice (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot didn't remove any citations. Rather, it just merged them together using named references. All of the statements in the article still had footnotes, but instead of having the same thing repeated three times in the references section, it is only repeated once. All of the numbered notes are still present. If you look at the bot's version, you'll see that reference #1 has "a, b, c" after it. Clicking these letters takes you to the locations in the article where the reference was used. In the version before the bot's edit, there are three references with the same content: 1, 14, and 15. Clicking on those references' numbers takes you to the same place in the article as with the letters in the bot's version. This is actually the style recommended in high-quality articles like featured articles... it avoids page clutter by reducing redundancy in the references section, while also keeping everything properly cited. I certainly agree that the bot's edit looked like it removed references, but it actually didn't. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Billy Raymond photo copyright

Hi! Thanks for your warning re copyright on Billy Raymond's page. File:BILLY-GCAC-2a.jpg‎I've tried to get it right this time and added a copyright - have I done it right, please? If not, what else do I need to do? Thanks! Linda C Wood 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wood200 (talk • contribs)

You have addressed the problem which I originally mentioned (thanks!); however, there are now a few other issues with the image. I'll wait on nominating it for deletion again to give you a chance to fix these up, though:

How is this image promotional? {{non-free promotional}} should only be used for materials specifically released as part of a promotional campaign, which I doubt is the case here. Perhaps a different non-free template would be more appropriate?

If the image is non-free and depicts a living person, then it is considered "replaceable". Non-free images which can be replaced with a freely licensed image are usually deleted; images of living people are almost always replaceable.

Finally, it doesn't have a fair-use rationale, which is needed per the non-free content criteria.

Thanks! I'll wait a few days for you to fix these before I go and nominate it for deletion again or anything... I understand that this stuff is confusing and can take time to fix. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've changed it to "Replaceable" because he is still alive. Is that all I need to do now? Linda C Wood 21:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wood200 (talk • contribs)

If the image is replaceable, then it should probably be deleted... see WP:NFCC#1. If, for some reason, it cannot be replaced by a free image, then it should be kept. Why can't this image be replaced by a free image? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! Billy Raymond has now sent an e-mail confirmation to Wikipedia as requested. Please confirm that the photo will not now be deleted. Thanks! Linda C Wood 19:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wood200 (talk • contribs)

It looks much better now! Everything should be good. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User unavailble

Excuse me, i tried to create an account recently and when i tried to log in it didn't let me, do you have a clue to what might have happened?--78.148.30.86 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually create the account? If so, make sure that you typed in the username and password with the correct capitalization. I can't really give you any other advice without more information. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent unwatched changes

There was some discussion of this. There are several reasons it wouldn't work:

1. Watching the page after vandalizing would not help - it counts watchers at the time of vandalism
2. It counts only autoconfirmed, recently-active users
3. It can omit the current editor from the count
4. (With other features enabled, it could omit those who just recently started watching from the count)
5. The page could display edits to pages with under 2, 5, or 30 watchers, not just those with 0 watchers
6. They'll have to pick their target out of this recent unwatched changes list - which means that the page may no longer even be unwatched.

This means that a vandal would need to sockpuppet at least one account into autoconfirmation, use it to watch a page, and then vandalize it with another account. This would hide it from the 0-watched recent changes (my guess, though, is that something like 3-or-less-watched will end up being used = 4 autoconfirmed socks), though it will still be clearly visible in our normal recent changes - which is exactly what it's like now. This is substantially more effort than the current practice of simply finding an out-of-the way page, checking its edit history, and vandalizing.

So, this (and pretty much all else) will not stop dedicated vandals, though it will make things substantially harder for them. It will, though, stop the vast majority of vandals who are currently not being noticed. (I'd prefer not to respond at the pump, since I don't want to discuss vandalism strategies in detail as per BEANS.)    M   19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. I will be changing my !vote back. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please userfy two articles

Hi Drilnoth

You seem to be willing to userfy articles, and you seem to be currently active. Could you kindly provide copies of Renfue and Black Veil Brides to User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue and User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides?

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 01:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See one's already done and assume the other's on the way. Thanks! ^Bongo_matic 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

You're welcome; if the pages' contents become notable enough for mainspace, you can let me know and I'll unprotect the article pages. Hope all goes well with the improvements! (feel free to let me know if you have any other admin requests, other than blocks or article deletion). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate that. As you may or may not have noticed, I was one of the editors quite irritated by the repeated recreation of the articles. But the creator seems to be an enthusiastic newbie, the sort of person who can actually add to the project if steered in the right direction (something I'm trying to help with). I've told him about the relevant policies and guidelines and told the creator that I'd be happy to review. ^Bongo_matic 02:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Review of Deleted Article

Drilnoth, I have a problem: I created an article back in Spring 2007 for a Dating and Relationships Book Author named Alan Roger Currie; His article remained without challenge for months; I had two minor challenges about the article being "too press release like" and "not enough citations," but other than that, it was left alone. Then, two editors named Davidwiz and Theserialcomma recently lobbied to have the article deleted.

Later, Theserialcomma recommended that I write a new article with more citations and references; I did that. Then, the second, more improved article was deleted as well. Can you please review the improvement of the second article versus the first article, and recommend and overturn? You seem pretty thorough and objective.

Discussion for original Alan Roger Currie article

Review for original Alan Roger Currie article

editor Theserialcomma recommending that I write a new, more improved article with significantly more citations and references

between the editor Theserialcomma and myself regarding the new article

Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing this with the admin who deleted the article or taking it to deletion review... I prefer not to get involved in this sort of more controversial things related to an article's deletion. Sorry. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago Smooth (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Image - File:Klis Foretess 3D.jpg

Hi! Can you see if this image is o.k. I founded it here, and than I altered it a bit in Photoshop. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that this image has a few problems, actually. First, it doesn't have a image copyright tag, which all images need. Second, if you found it at another source and then just modified it, it is a derivative work and, like the original, is a non-free image. However, if a free image could be created to serve the same purpose (e.g., if you created a free image entirely from scratch, rather than modifying an existing non-free image), then it fails one of the non-free content criteria and would probably be deleted. If you add a copyright tag and explain why the image is not replaceable, then it should be good! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I did what you told me. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better! However, now it needs a fair-use rationale which explains why the image meets all of the non-free content criteria... sorry about not mentioning that earlier; I hadn't thought about this at that time. Otherwise, the image looks all good! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; looks good. Now that's not saying that nobody will ever nominate it for deletion, because different peoples' opinions about fair use on Wikipedia differ, but I wouldn't nominate this for deletion without a good deal of thought first. Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns... if you have any questions about other images, or anything else, for that matter, feel free to ask me! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My images

Go head and delete both pictures (File:Agent K.PNG and File:Agent K original design.PNG). I uploaded them because I wanted to publish the article I made in my sandbox. However, I don't think I'll ever publish it. So please delete them. --ραncακemisτακe (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for the response. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23

Hi. At Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23, you said that you could use AWB to remove IFD tags, IFDC tags, and add oldifdfull to each talk page. Could you go ahead and do that to any image that is still a blue link on that day's nominations? The short version is that anything that was clearly, unquestionably a violation (galleries of fair use images with no commentary) I deleted and anything that was legitimately disputable (galleries of images where there was text commentary on them or images in infoboxes, albeit multiple ones on a page) I left in place. I think that's the most reasonable alternative - when everyone is just copying and pasting the same votes (not !votes, these were actually votes), there isn't any consideration of separate issues that legitimately can be considered. So if you can remove tags and add tags as needed with AWB, that would be great. Thanks. --B (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. --B (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I'll fire up AWB momentarily. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I spot checked and everything looks fine. I think renominating them is fine if you want to, but maybe one article per day so there isn't just the same crowd posting copy/paste votes again. One user was copying and pasting the same comment with the same broken signature on each one - it's hard to even weigh an argument when there are different issues for each set of images, but those issues aren't being addressed in anyone's comments. --B (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree that closing a lot of those nominations as "delete" would probably have been a bad idea because of all the confusion. I was being careful to nominate each image for its own reasons, just grouping similar images that had similar reasons for deletion, but I guess a lot of users didn't take the time to study each nomination. :/ Ah, well. I probably will renominate them over time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Information needed to upload my own images

Hi, Thanks for your message. I do understand that the images have been tagged for deletion. I would like to tell that those images have been clicked from my personal camera, so i thought me being the owner could upload them. Kindy let me know how could I mention in that those images have not been copied from any website and I'm the owner of File:TheBuilding.jpg, File:TheQuadrangle.jpg & File:TheLushLawn.jpg.

Thanks Hinashahed (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Hina

Okay. To indicate the source (yourself) on the images, you can put something like "I created this image entirely myself" on the image's description page (just click "edit" when you are looking at the image's page to do so). However, there is one more problem then... the image's don't have image copyright tags. Images made by Wikipedia users must be freely licensed or public domain. Text on Wikipedia is released under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 license, which allows anyone to reuse the image for any reason as long as the attribute you (the author) as the original creator of the content. If you want to license images in the same way, you can add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image description page. Other options are available, so choose the one that makes the most sense for you at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PUI

Hi, just thought I'd mention -- noticed your listing of File:Alice-wonerland.jpg at PUI, images with no licensing should be DI'd instead (couldn't see any claims of it being free in the history). If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Something had made me think that PUF would be more appropriate at the time, but now I can't figure out what it was. :/ Ah, well, it doesn't really matter now anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:229373ChloeJones2 lg.jpg

I've updated the rationale given for the Chloe Jones image to properly respond to your concerns, by utilizing the exact wording used for File:Phil Hartman.jpg, which is present in a featured article. Tabercil (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; that looks good. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Cabe6403's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for the info provided. I assure you that I shall keep the points in mind and incorporate the required tags and attributes wherever required.

Hinashahed (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Hina

WikiProject Flagged Revisions

You may may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding TUGS images

Regarding images used in List of recurring TUGS characters –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've read into the guidlines regarding the TUGS images, and despite the large cast image there isn't another for the other characters (which you have marked for deletion). Since there is no other image available, do they still meet the deletion criteria? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, just to make sure we are thinking the same thing, the images of the "good guys" can be deleted because there is the group picture near the start of the article, correct? If so, then its just the other images which need discussion. In this case, I think that they fail Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles. However, more importantly, I'd say that they fail the non-free content criteria directly, too. Specifically, points #3a (why do we need images of all the "bad guys" and other characters? They all look fairly similar, so wouldn't one suffice?) and #8 (why is it important that the reader see all of these images? How do they significantly increase the readers' understanding of the article?). If you think that they pass these criteria, please explain your thoughts on it to me and I'd be happy to reconsider. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I've removed individual images of the "good guys", as this is clearly replacable with the top image. As well as this, I guess we could remove all individual "bad guy" characters except one, with the caption "a typical xxxxxx".

As for the other char's, they have no real replacability as they have separate models per characters, and there are no group shots. Should these not be excluded? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good compromise. I still feel that the use of the remaining three images fails WP:NFCC#8, but definitely not as much as the other images do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that the tags can be removed from the extra characters? I realise deletion date is today. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 02:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that they could be removed from the extra characters, but leaving them on all but maybe one of the "bad guy" images would be good. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes of course, sorry i forgot i hadn't already removed them from the article. Keep the one they call "Zorran". If that makes any sense at your end. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I've removed the deletion tag from the Zorran image. The others will probably be deleted in another day or two. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)