User talk:Darth Stabro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Possibly unfree File:Kneber botnet.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kneber botnet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Copana2002 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Conchata Ferrell.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Conchata Ferrell.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://images.buddytv.com/articles/two_and_a_half_men/images/conchata_ferrell_2.jpg or other website, not own work and not licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 by the copyright holder. As a copyright violation, File:Conchata Ferrell.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Conchata Ferrell.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Conchata Ferrell.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Conchata Ferrell.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Conchata Ferrell.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM page

I reverted your image on the page. I didn't see any discussion about changing a policy page. Even if the addition is good faith, it should not be marked as a minor edit. I started a discussion about it at WP:ANI.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did the same, and I'm on your side. please communicate here, don't cause problems. --Ludwigs2 19:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

A report pertaining to you has been filed at WP:ANI and out of courtesy I am informing you that it can be found here. Thank you and happy editing. Rgoodermote  00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You should probably get into your preferences and alter them so that edits are not marked as minor by default, it makes it look like you are trying to avoid scrutiny. The rest of this ANI thread is a bunch of hooey as far as I'm concerned, I like your "vandalism" image, but I suppose you will now need to discuss the matter on the policy talk page since there is some objection to it. In my opinion that is what Niteshift should have done in the first place instead of going straight for the WP:PITCHFORKS. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Too bad I extended more good faith towards Omniwikia than you have towards me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather liked the image as well. unfortunately it got deleted... if you want to send it to me, I'll revise it so that it conforms to copyright policy... --Ludwigs2 07:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that will be possible. I can't imagine why, but the logo is actually copyrighted [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, but there are other non-copyrighted materials I can use. that's not an issue. I really just liked the spray-painted text bit, which would be a pain in the butt to reproduce. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation." --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for File:Wikipedia-Sockpuppet.png, which I have deleted. Fences&Windows 03:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)