User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Editor assistance userbox

• Template:User Editor Assistance

As you're a participant in Wikipedia:Editor assistance, I thought you might be interested in this new userbox that I've designed for the project. You can add it to your userpage with {{User Editor Assistance}}. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotional images

Abu badali, I'm curious, have you ever come across a promotional image that was from a press kit or a site indicating in the terms of use that the image may be used for promotional- or press-related things. A while ago when I picked thirty or so promotional images at random, most of them did not include a source, those that did were from an official website but weren't promotional, and think that there was one I thought might actually be a promotional image. What have been your results? --Iamunknown 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have once see a source for real promotional image for the Lost tv-series, but I'm not sure. I also have the impression that I once was pointed to a source of real promotional image for Comedy Central's produtcions.

But the fact stays that 90% of the images claimed to be promotional in Wikipedia simply are not. I wonder if we could get a bot to tag for deletion all images claimed do be promotional but whose source is in a blacklist we would provide, containing the most common mistaken sources, as imdb.com, tv.yahoo.com, abc.go.com. fox.com. wbtv.com, sony.com, starwars.com, startrek.com... --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, though I'm not sure how easily it would go down. People seem resistant to the idea that "Oh, an image on an official website!" is not necessarily a promotional image, no matter how much you want to believe it is. To get around that resistance, we individually could create a list of image description pages that link to those domains, create a list of image description pages that are in Category:Promotional images and its sub categories and then intersect the two lists and go through them manually (preferably with api.php or query.php) (ugh). --Iamunknown 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance question

I came across HP Output Management Solutions, and a few other articles written by User:HPOMteam. The author put a note on the bottom saying the information was copyrighted by HP. I got the feeling this was frowned upon and should be speedily deleted, but I wasn't sure. -Haikon 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Haikon! Thanks for asking. Remember that the four necessary parameters for speedy deletion of blatant copyright infringement are:

• "Material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia;
• "There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving.
• "The infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors.
• "Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable." (WP:CSD#G12)

An assertion has been made but it is questionable. The only time an assertion isn't questionable is when an OTRS member (a list is at m:OTRS/personnel) adds Template:OTRS ticket or Template:PermissionOTRS to the article's talk page or to the image description page.

I cannot find a website from which the material was added, so technically the pages shouldn't be speedy deleted. Even if the website from which the content was taken is obvious, administrators monitoring speedy deletions may not delete a page but instead cull the infrining content and leave a stub (see this diff for an example). I think that the prod tags you added are entirely appropriate; I'll be watching the pages myself.

Thanks for asking, I hope that helped, but if you have any further questions, feel free to ask! --Iamunknown 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jenvidanes

Err, she took those pictures herself at a concert. She's perfectly free to re-license her content to Wikipedia. Nardman1 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, now I see the text "I took the picture last Jan. 28, 2007 at Eastwood Central Plaza, Eastwood, Quezon City" on Image:Dictalicense livelyevent.JPG. No author, however, is indicated on Image:Dictalicensepic.jpg, no? --Iamunknown 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, right. 50/50 ain't bad though. Nardman1 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

George Albu

Please advise re image size Talk:George_Albu#Image_size and Charles_Collier_Michell. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I've commented at Talk:George Albu. --Iamunknown 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. I have watchlist-ed that page, so I'll add any further comments if necessary. Regards, Iamunknown 22:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion script

Thanks for the note! I don't nominate images for deletion very often, but it's good to have a link to that script on my talk page for future reference. It may yet come in handy. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For jumping in to help out and offering good advice during the formation of Wikipedia:Editor assistance, I award Iamunknown the Original Barnstar. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Thanks. :-) --Iamunknown 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RE minor edits

The edits i mark minor are usually fixing typos or simple vandalism. Unexplained blankings, adding gibberish, ect. I try to make sure anything i mark minor is not controversial, but if you think i need to watch my edits more carefully i will. Sorry if i have caused you any trouble. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cobaltbluetony/Templates

Hi. Can you please explain this edit? Without explanation, it seems kind of rude to make a technical adjustment that doesn't really do anything... - CobaltBlueTony 00:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The link previous linked to Template:User:Cobaltbluetony/Templates/Wiki-philosophy. Now it links to User:Cobaltbluetony/Templates/Wiki-philosophy. The former is a redirect, the latter the actual page in your user space. I did not intend to be rude. I apologise. --Iamunknown 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand essentially the importance of removing redirects where unnecessary. No apologies needed; the courtesy of an explanation is more than appreciated. Thank you for your efforts. - CobaltBlueTony 00:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock concerns

That's almost certainly him, but he does seem to have toned it down to some degree. Hopefully the message got through, but if any more disruption starts, let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for referring to your accidental deletions as "vandalism". I have seen quite a lot of it on Wikipedia lately, and I just assumed that someone was mucking about again.

I think what you actually did was edit an old version - this can play havoc with articles and Talk pages!! I have done it before myself! Cheers. --Mais oui! 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion: andyfuchtman.jpg

Sure! I was going to make an article about the band he is in about um.... forever ago? they broke up, yadda yadda yadda, yes, delete it. --Danlock2 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't actually delete it, but I'll tag it for speedy deletion. --Iamunknown 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection Games

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. When you added the Image Speedy Deletion notice, you accidentally deleted half the page. Zomic_13 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, it keeps happening! Firefox keeps truncating text areas. What internet browser are you using? I'm open to any suggestions. --Iamunknown 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I use Firefox. Zomic_13 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

About the fair use Bionicle images

I may not have been clear enough in my first post. The image I requested to be deleted is really bad - at 100x140, it is almost illegible, and is badly pixelated if enlarged to normal Web resolution. The other image, which is recommended as a replacement, is 500x500 - perfectly reasonable for Web resolution (which is our recommended fair use standard), and far too low for illegitimate use such as the production of counterfeit printed game covers. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I examined both images before I commented. --Iamunknown 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Isreal UCFD

Well, it's already been deleted so a rename isn't possible. But there's nothing stopping you from creating Category:Wikipedians interested in Isreal, and I doubt such a category would get deleted. So yes, that would more than likely be an acceptable soultion to the issue if you wanted to do that. VegaDark 03:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your detailed message on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, I do regularly have copyright related questions as I browse through India related articles. I will follow your suggestions when I need. Thanks again. --Spundun 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sartzetakhs2.jpg

Thanks for your follow-up and for the Commons responses you provided. They were great. If the majotity of the responses prevail all this effort would have been worth it. Thanks again. Dr.K. 08:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Apparently I wasn't clear enough before"

I don't mind if people post talk at commons, so long as they don't expect any immediate response. Sometimes I'm at commons every day, sometimes once a month, and not all talk is looking for a response. In other words, I crafted the message I wanted, but thank you for your input. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

images

You posted a request for information on User:WikiManiac64s talk page, but you might want to note that he's banned. I think the copyright information might be the same as on all the other box arts out there. McKay 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

China Fair Use Tag Deletion

Canildo said "A license template for images that would be permitted under Chinese fair-use law but not US fair-use law. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is based in the US, we need to follow US law".

I disagree with him on this point. Fair Use in this case, is a common treatment in both systems. Is Wikipedia based on US and English only? How about Canada and Great Britain and other English speaking nations? They all have different law systems. How about other language version of Wikipedia?

Please explain in pratical, how an image created in China which qualifies fair use of Chinese fair-use law would violate US copyright law here, thanks.

Lupo said “The U.S. does not apply Chinese law, and China doesn't apply U.S. law. Thus, "Chinese fair use" is irrelevant for us; we cannot rely on it. "Fair use" at the English Wikipedia is always and exclusively U.S. fair use.... This template should be deleted. Lupo 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)”

I also disagree with his point. The law of China and US are not totally irrelevant. The purpose of both laws are both for justice, fair, protection of the public and punishment the breachers.

I agree there are lots of discrenpencies between two laws. But they not always on the opposite. For example, stealing and rubery are illigal in both systems, and the right for girls to go to school are guarantted in both. Should we say that the illegality of stealing and rubbery are exclusively US illegality, and right of girls go to the school is exclusively US right????Dongwenliang 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your last reply on my talk page, it is very constructive. :) Dongwenliang 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Glen Gilmore

Iamunknown: RE your editing of "Glen Gilmore" - I'm still attempting to learn how to use wikipedia, but you have completely edited the posted material. You held that the information posted was copy-infringement. I am the creator of the "pdf" document from his bio, and I am the one who posted the information on the website. Please assist me in returning the page to how it was written - OR, please tell me what I need to do to prove to the satisfaction of Wikipedia that the nature of my post is in complience with all laws.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsphillfan (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the revert. They've been at it for weeks now. Silly vandals - Alison^☺ 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :-) --Iamunknown 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of material from my talk page

You deleted material from my talk page per [1]. You deleted material from the talk pages of 11 other editors as well, at about the same time. Please do not do this again. It is a serious breach of civility. If editors can canvass for support to keep an article as the USRD project recently did, by sending out material on March 10 to about 190 editors, then someone can send out equivalent canvassing to 12 editors. It cannot be a one way street. Thanks. Edison 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I saw that the USRD project canvassed about 190 editors, I would have reverted them as well. Reverting canvassing is in no way related to civility but instead is related to, oh, say, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Canvassing. Thank you for your kind note. --Iamunknown 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

Thank you so much for helping me on how to chang a copyright tag. Carnildo and Mecu are giving me crap that the copyright is wrong. --FrogTape 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help! If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask me. Regards, Iamunknown 03:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting JB

Thanks for reverting the banned user's vandalization on my User page. He seems to be a bit frustrated that his latest sock farm's getting weeded. SirFozzie 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured he was a sock with the "I'm here to stay" line in his lovely poem. --Iamunknown 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. it's banned User:JB196, who is getting close to about 200 sockpuppets (and that's before his latest checkuser, there's about EIGHTY names on that one, and I'm pretty sure that ALL of them are socks. Hopefully the CheckUser folks can get that pushed forward so we can have a nice break from his vandalism. SirFozzie 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Europäische Freiwillige

Could you possibly make a note at Talk:Europäische Freiwillige explaining this edit? Just saying that the link is "disputed" without giving any indication of the nature of the dispute is not very helpful, and is not really going to discourage people from re-adding the link. It's not at all obvious what is wrong with it. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. Nearly 50 kB of discussion have already taken place and the link is now on the spam blacklist, so it wouldn't work anyways. --Iamunknown 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

I think the Quid Pro Quo report can be removed, because it was cleared up, and it seems to meet concencus, too.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image policy

Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity {Slash-|-Talk} 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Herd With Colin Cowherd

In terms of copyright protection, is the transcript of Cowherd's comments considered "Fair Use"? You will see it in the History section as STS01 has deleted it numerous times. Your advice is appreciated. --Bluefield 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not unlicensed material can be used under "fair use" depends upon the use, amount and character of the material. Can you give me an explanation of how his comments would be used in The Herd with Colin Cowherd? Is there a link to the transcript? Regards, Iamunknown 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply removed an unsourced quotation per policy. Please review this vandals contributions and come to your own conclusion as to thier intentions here. Thanks --STS01 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically it was a transcript of Cowherd urging his listeners to visit a sports blog "to blow it up". Here's a transcript: "We occasionally, once a week…we’ll mention a website, our listeners will flee to it, and we’ll shut it down. We feel bad about this, we don’t mean to do it. It usually forces that young guy or young gal to buy more bandwidth and can be expensive. I don’t know that…but wouldn’t it be great if every day we gave out a new, young website and blew it up? If I told my audience every day–just one that’s annoying–and we could give it to them, and our audience would blow it up? I want everyone to go to it as fast as you possibly can. When I say go, go….it’s three words. THE BIG LEAD dot com. THE. BIG. LEAD. DOT. COM. Go now.”. It was being used in the controversies section to describe the incident, to lead to the effect (TheBigLead.com was knocked offline for approximately four days.) SirFozzie 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright questions

Hey, was just looking at the copyright pages and wanted to thank you for answering some of the flood of questions and encouraging people to use free content. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Sorry for the delayed reply, I noticed the "new message" bar but was in the middle of maintenance, so kept on going. Regards, Iamunknown 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Post reverts

I am sorry, may I know who gave you the right to revert the posts of one user using popups? I mean, is it forbidden to pst comments or something? That has been a debate which has been going on for a while, and I don't think that you have a right to revert people's posts that way - if someone wants, they can remove it from their talkpages themselves.. Thanks Baristarim 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevant note is at WP:ANI#RM vote spamming. I removed what I considered to be blatant WP:CANVASSing. If you feel my actions were inappropriate, you may wish to pursue dispute resolution. Regards, Iamunknown 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the RM until a moment ago - I just saw a lot of popup reverts of user talk pages on my watchlist. Feel free to revert me if you would like.. However, the post didn't include a link to the RM.. Anyways, just revert if you would like. Baristarim 02:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it did not directly link to the RM. I may have acted hastily. Thanks for calling me on that. :-) I will revert, but not with popups...I'll just undo and leave a brief note in my edit summary directing to ANI. --Iamunknown 02:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to edit my talk pages, even if it is due to vandalism. If someone wants share his opinions with me, he will definitely use my talk pages. No one has the right to censor talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested I had the right. If you feel that I've done some gross misdeed, I suggest that instead of chastising me, you seek the appropriate step of dispute resolution. And on a similar vein, no one has the right to canvas other people who share their same opinion and thus create a false consensus. --Iamunknown 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk about the false consensus in the relevant page, which is the page that the message is on; instead of deleting my personal talk page. I am sure that it will not happen again. Thank you Caglarkoca 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said that there was consensus on my talk page; if you came looking for consensus, I direct you to WP:CANVASS. --Iamunknown 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

No worries, it's okay. I've responded to your comments in AN/I. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Ariel_Upper_campus.jpg

Please see my response and a previous discussion in my User talk Shmuliko 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Collapsing pictures

Thanks for adding the Javascript to the Zmachine photo deletion section. I didn't like how the photos crowded things either but knew of no better way; I didn't know about the show/hide ability. I've added your trick to my sandbox. I deleted your comment so as to not dilute the issue but wanted to express my thanks here. Greg L (my talk) 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppet tags and temp user pages

Good point. I've never dealt with a community ban and a whole mess of sockpuppets before so I've been looking at other sockpuppet accounts and just copying whatever was there. Before the bad discussion ended, a bunch of the sockpuppets were blocked and tagged as suspected sockpuppets, but that tag doesn't indicate that the account is blocked. I think I'm going to replace all of those with the proven sock tag and a link to the ban discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalie Erin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

No, I like your idea. I didn't realize there was a parser for blocked accounts or I would have put it there is the first place. Fabulous. Natalie 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ping

See User:Gmaxwell/lfu for pages you might want to tag with the non-free marker. When you edit these, please change links from Wikipedia:Fair use to Wikipedia:Non-free content. If the text is actually talking abour fair use justifications and fair use law, pipe link it so it still says fair use, if the text is talking about wikipedia policy then it should probably become "non-free content" or the like. :) --Gmaxwell 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll get to work on it tomorrow. --Iamunknown 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I've done all the non-protected templates with more than 100 uses on the list. Jkelly was hitting the protected ones. --Gmaxwell 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Argument

In the ATB's article you removed the article's image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Tanneberger

And you gave this argument: "Remove un-free image of André Tanneberger represented on an album cover; such a use fails our Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines and policy"

So, you should start to erase all those images in every article in Wikipedia in which "such a use" fails Wikipedia's fair use policy. Like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Duncan_James.jpg

Thanks for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronald26 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

One should indeed remove images that fail our policy regarding Wikipedia:Non-free content. BTW, you may sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Iamunknown 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harmony, beauty and truth

no deals with me. You cannot trade with me. The truth is the truth. What raises bad atmosphere are the admins that abuse their rights, act out of policy, shout at others etc. They need help, not me. I am not afraid of getting banned. If I get banned for asking questions - so be it. What is worse for the world - me getting banned from WP, or me making trades with regard to honesty and truth? Harmony, beauty and truth. That's what I want in my live. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You suggested I delete diffs for not getting banned. That's the trade. And malicious is the crime, not the report of the crime. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was already softening some of the content and was also thinking about removing it for the time being. Yeah, this was yesterday or so. But not because of a ban thread. I only care about their threats in so far as they are against WP written policies. BTW, maybe you participate in the sanction discussion. Shouldn't you help fighting the bad? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a live outside, just came back from dancing tango :-) [2] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

. :-) Maybe there is tango near to you. http://eng.tango.info/ Any questions - feel free to contact me. In Europe there are a lot of higher educated people in tango. Also IT people. To much computer, so they balance it with tango. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free templates

I think we've got most of the old "fair use" templates.. although I'm still finding some more here and there.. the next bot run will throw more in the list. We also need to get all the other non-free media templates. Stuff like {{Noncommercial}} and anything else people would put on an imagepage to indicate non-free status. I'm not sure how to find all those, but we don't have many of them yet. --06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We can start at User:Carnildo/Things OrphanBot found on image description pages. --Iamunknown 06:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Basketball at the Summer Olympics

Hello. You removed Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg from this article stating that it was a fair-use image (correct) and no rationale was given and could not be given. Well, the Olympic flag was allowed by the IOC to be used as the flag representing the Unified Team (or EUN), which was a mixed national team composed by most of the freshly-separated ex-USSR countries. It's all stated on the article and for a reliable source about the flag's use by the team see here. No other visual representation exists and can be alloted to this team, so that's why the Olympic flag is used.

I reverted your edit already. Hope this explanation clears the issue. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Unterweger.jpg

The source for Image:Unterweger.jpg is added. Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? --Iamunknown 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.crimelife.com/killers/unterweger.html posted the picture, and it's pretty clear the Austrian local police department or other law enforcement agency owns the copyright. As a mug shot, the fair use tag clearly says these kind of photos are "normally copyrighted by the law enforcement agency". Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Crimelife.com does not indicate that it is the copyright holder of the image, which is a necessary item of information per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. --Iamunknown 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the only mug shot of this guy I can find, so it's irreplaceable to illustrate him, and I think although crimelife doesn't own the copyright, the copyright is almost certain that it's the police department where he was arrested. Let the admin decide this, I guess. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond further at Image talk:Unterweger.jpg, so the administrator can see the discussion. --Iamunknown 05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've filled a "contact us" form in courttv.com, the parent corporation of crime library, and asked about the specific mugshot. Hopefully they'll email me back. If not, I might call them. Cheers! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stefaneriksson_mugshot.jpg

Hi, I guess the image can be deleted...back when I uploaded it, general consensus on here was that police mugshots were in the public domain. This was apparently not quite correct, so all these mugshots have been re-tagged as unfree during the last months...since Eriksson is still alive, I suppose a fair use claim would be rather weak, so I guess we'll have to live without an image on his article for the time being. -- Ferkelparade π 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I am not exactly sure what the actual licensing status for police mug shots are. Unfortunately (but I don't think so in this case) I think that many images tagged as "police mugshots" are, quite frankly, not. What I would personally like to move towards is developing relevant image copyright tags or specific jurisdictions or, if that would be overkill, just research individual jurisdictions and find out the licensing status. That will be a long way off, however, as it is currently a one-man job. Thanks for the encouragement! --Iamunknown 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Toksyuryel_wikipedia_sig_img.jpg

I should like to point out to you that this image only qualifies as fair use when used in the manner I have been using it- i.e. as a tiny icon in my signature, which as you know will 99% of the time only be used on Talk Pages. There is no article in which this image can be used in and I do not know if it would be fair use to use it in that manner. I really do not understand this policy of disallowing fair use images in the user namespace, what about that namespace invalidates their fair use status? -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yuna_a.gif

Go ahead and delete it Renmiri 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{db-authora|][3]}}, requesting an administrator speedy delete it. Regards, Iamunknown 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:NZ-Wanaka.png

Hi - you wrote: I noticed that you created Image:NZ-Wanaka.png and tagged it with {{PD}}. I know it has been a long time since you uploaded it (almost two years) but I was wondering if you could provide any information about the source of the image, what map it was derived upon, etc. Thanks!

Easier said than done. I made about 200 New Zealand maps around that time (all prefixed "NZ-"), and used a variety of maps for information. The basis for all of those maps was a freehand-drawn map of the country I did several years ago (hence the PD template), and the double-checking of exact locations of individual features could have come from one of many sources - among them "Wise's New Zealand Guide", "Shell Road Maps of New Zealand", NZMS topographical maps, online satellite photos maps from the likes of the New Zealand Department of Conservation and NASA, "A Descriptive Atlas of New Zealand" and others. In all likelihood any individual map I made was not drawn from one individual source but from a composite. Under the circumstances, PD-self might be the simplest non-deprecated template to use on it. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Quari

I was wondering why Quari's post had not been archived, and I thought that it might be because his timestamp is not in the standard format. If that is not allowed I apologize. hbdragon88 06:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't think of that. I bet you are right and you don't need to apologise. I'm sorry for my confrontational edit summary. Regards, Iamunknown 06:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:12345ak

Please review my comments at WP:AN/I - I think he needs a block rather than sympathy. That said, I have misattributed diffs before and accidentally said the vandalism-remover was the vandal, so I hope I did it correctly. x42bn6 Talk 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did, and I'm not exactly sure what is going on here. I see your diffs (and the huge history of diffs everywhere else), but I think it is mostly a failure to communicate and I think it could be an educational rather than punitive experience. --Iamunknown 00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, didn't see that 12345ak was adding the hate sites ([4]). --Iamunknown 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd Edit

Many thanks for pointing that out. I have no idea what happened, although the server I'm working on has been glitchy today. I attempted to revert my own edit, but you beat me (for which thanks again!). Very odd. Robertissimo 05:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. --Iamunknown 05:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

copyfraud question

I saw you on editor assistance as knowing about image copyright issues, and I thought I'd ask you a question. I'm interested in putting up a few images created in the 1850s-80s which I've found on web sites where the site claims the image is under copyright. I've asked a couple people about this, but I haven't gotten an answer I'm comfortable with. The pieces I'm looking at are cartes de visite, which were created often for families or galleries. I don't know the history of the pieces, they may have never been "displayed" in a public forum. From this, if this type of distribution isn't considered "publishing", most would seem to fall under "Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship)" of "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known", and thus be PD if created before 1887 (many cartes de visite are). These pieces are usually hosted by academic sites, and even given public domain rules, the digital images are often hosted with claimed restrictions on their redistribution, such as requiring written permission for their redistribution (see Image:WHS Image ID 45364.jpg). Sometimes it is claimed that copyright rests with the heirs of the creators of documents, such as here. Then again, this may be a copyright notice attached to all images in that particular archive, whether the copyright has expired or no, or it may just be incorrect. This is another example. Some articles on wp have similar strange copyright notices such as Image:WHS Image ID 45364.jpg. Sometimes it is claimed that copyright rests with the heirs of the creators of documents, such as here.

I've been previously told not to worry about it, the institutions are engaging in "copyfraud," and to go ahead and use the images. That seems like the right thing to me, too, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable about it if this whole "copyfraud" thing didn't exist. It seems like the organizations doing it aren't trying to break the law (AGF?), I'd feel better if it was written up in a WP policy somewhere that ignoring these claims is ok. Is it? Is that something we could do (I'm thinking possibly having an essay on copyfraud, and maybe get it mentioned in WP:COPY)? Looking up "copyfraud", WP has had many discussions on the term, here is one of the more informative, Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Question about PD-old and Smithsonian (it links to an interesting court case, as well). [5] and (related) [6] discuss the legal ramifications and would be a good basis for argument. I also noticed that the issue comes up often at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... Then again, perhaps this falls under WP:CREEP, or WP enjoys living in the gray area as much as the academic libraries do.

I'm sorry to bother you, but one area in WP I've especially little experience with is images, and I don't want to do things incorrectly. Please let me know if this question should be directed elsewhere. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being concerned about copyright. I do not feel qualified to give a more accurate answer than you have already been given. I think, however, that if Lupo (talk · contribs) is around, he or she will be able to help you out. I will forward request via e-mail; Lupo should be around either tomorrow or the next day. I'm sorry I can be of no more use. Regards, Iamunknown 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot add more to this discussion. Technically, the copyright does belong to the heirs of the photographer (or, if he transferred his copyright, to the heirs of whoever he transferred the rights to.) The copyright in nearly all cases does not belong to the archives! Insofar, the University of Oregon has got it right. The WHS has probably no rights to make the claims they do, unless they could produce proof that they are the copyright holders. (It's a common misconception amongst historical societies that they believe they had any copyright on their holdings.)

Whether these images were published is a different question. Our article on cartes de visite says that "The immense popularity of these card photographs led to the publication and collection of photographs of prominent persons.", so I would guess that in fact, many CdVs of at least famous persons were published and thus are at the very least {{PD-US}} (published pre-1923). Image:Carte de visite.jpg (Sojourner Truth) is clearly PD-US: the caption claims she sold these images to raise money. Selling an item in copies to the general public is "publication".

Another practical question is that many of these CdVs are in fact "orphan works". (At least I suspect that this is the case.) This means that the copyright holder is simply unknown, even after a diligent search. For unpublished works, this is a serious problem copyright-wise, since we just are unable to ascertain whether the work is PD or still copyrighted. There's no clear-cut solution to this problem. "Publication" implies the consent of the copyright holder. With orphan works, such consent is impossible to obtain.

The only way out is indeed to rely on the provisions for "anonymous works" (or "author's death unknown"), see Hirtle's chart. I would agree that any unpublished CdV created more than 120 years ago is PD in the U.S.

For CdVs that were published, I would consider all those published before 1923 (I guess the large majority) PD-US. Those published later would be subject to the normal rules. See WP:PD#Unpublished works and WP:PD#Published works. Lupo 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: some CdVs are not anonymous works. Image:WHS_Image_ID_45364.jpg, for instance, gives the photographer's name in the lower left corner. To verify the copyright status, one could try to track down that person, if the name can be deciphered. ("Hugo E...ch, Milwaukee") But it's a lot of work. Lupo 08:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{stuck}} template-thanks for the repair, may be a couple more

Hi - Thanks for fixing the page for the {{stuck}} template. I think the protected category got in there because I copied the format of the template from {{resolved}} which is protected.

I don't have any experience making templates though, so I don't understand the other part you did - wrap the template in "includeonly" tags ...

I'm writing to you to let you know I made two other templates using the same method, copying from the first one. I made these templates as status tags for reports on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I wonder if the other two new ones may have those same problems as well:

{{Work in Progress}}

{{Stale}}

Would you take a look at those to see if they need the same repairs?

Thanks a lot, much appreciated! --Parzival418 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I committed the edit to the other unprotected templates. I am unsure why the extra whitespace was there in the first place, so I posted a query about it on Template talk:Resolved. Regarding the includeonly tags, I think that meta:Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude might explain it better than I. (That whole page in addition to meta:ParserFunctions is very helpful, I refer to them often and they are recommended reading by my book.) Hope this helps. --Iamunknown 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again for your help. I'll read those help pages you recommended and keep the links around for future use. Much appreciated. --Parzival418 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Foundation

When did posting quotes from the foundation become harmful to the foundation? Just curious. Also, a representative from the foundation stated that "most" of the editors at wikipedia are volunteers - and none of their comments are actions represent the thoughts or views of the foundation. How do you who is a volunteer that doesn't represent the views of wikipedia and who is an offical representative? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoesphJobs (talk • contribs) 03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

When and where were the comments that you posted published by the Wikimedia Foundation? --Iamunknown 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation Quotes in the News

Daily Vidette, IL - Mar 28, 2007

Northern Star Online, IL - Apr 18, 2007

Malaysia Star, Malaysia - Apr 21, 2007

Penn State Digital Collegian, PA - Apr 4, 2007

WebProNews, KY - Apr 12, 2007

are a few of the more recent sites.

I used the name of a foundation member in the quote that she made, and I stated where it was found.

Is there another format which should have been used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoesphJobs (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Were the copyrights to the texts owned by the Wikimedia Foundation or by the individual newspapers? --Iamunknown 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please comment on proposed change to Template talk:Tfd

Hey Gurch, I posted an edit request to Template talk:Tfd. Would you double check me to make sure my edit wouldn't screw anything up? I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Iamunknown 11:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing, but I think adding a second parameter might be unnecessary. As far as I can see, what you want to do is use the {{FULLPAGENAME}} rather that just the {{PAGENAME}} when no parameter is supplied, but you still want people to be able to supply just the pagename as a parameter. Using {{#if:{{{1|}}}|Template:{{{1}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} would accomplish that – Gurch 11:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid it was going to be confusing. What I intended was: if no parameter were given, it would do what the current default is (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Foo); if parameter number 1 were given, it would link to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Arbitrary_foo, where you get to select what the "Arbitrary_foo" is; and if parameter number 2 were given, it would like to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Meh, where you get to choose what "Meh" is. I thought it might be good because then editors who do not realize that the template is changed can continue using it as previously (with the default and parameter-one output) but can also insert an entirely arbitrary (#Lorem_ipsum vs. #Template:Foo) template (with parameter-two). Does it make more sense? Or less? :-\ --Iamunknown 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sounds like instuction creep to me, but if you really want there to be three different ways to link to a TfD discussion, by all means go ahead – Gurch 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for [7]. They really hate it when you delete stuff don't they? :) Garion96 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clearing out the backlog at PUI. You've done a great job, and its helped out a lot. --Iamunknown 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Andalusier - Vorführung spanischer Rassen6.jpg

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Image:Andalusier - Vorführung spanischer Rassen6.jpg. Anthony Appleyard 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Marty Brodeur FAC

Are you really going to reject a high-quality article because of that? Sportskido8 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Iamunknown 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a fur. Have a look. Quadzilla99 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Drafting comments on the image talk page. --Iamunknown 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to seem like I was dismissing your comments, just that I think it's satisfactory. If I was more interested in the article I would have stayed and tried to work on it more. As it is I was just trying to help out what little I could. I've got like 20 other projects going right now. Quadzilla99 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You weren't uncivil as far as I can tell—I thought I might have come off that way. Really as I said I was just trying to help out. Maybe if I have time I'll take a look but as I said that's not really a project/area of interest of mine. Incidentally, you can always fix the objection yourself if it's easy enough. You'll notice I did all the tedious WP:DATE and WP:DASH work when reviewing the article. Quadzilla99 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No you're allowed to work on an article and fix concerns. Much as I did:[8] In general if you're one of the main contributors to the article you should mention that beforehand. As for myself other than finding some pics for the article, I never edited it until the FAC and all I did was fix formatting errors and some grammar. Quadzilla99 20:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify I find pics for all kinds of articles, so I didn't even go out and look for Brodeur pics I just found some while searching for free pics of athletes on flickr. Quadzilla99 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Sportskido8 responded to you anyways. Quadzilla99 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cm3942

I reverted your change to User:Cm3942, since he wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry, he was blocked as a vandalism-only account. Mystytopia (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --Iamunknown 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Inappropriate includeonly"

[From Template talk:Resolved]

"Inappropriate includeonly" SMcCandlish? You've got to be kidding me. Oh well, I've removed the "inappropriate includeonly" tags at {{Stuck}} so you don't have to bother with me or my inappropriate actions anymore. Regards, Iamunknown 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what definition of "inappropriate" you are using, to be that offended. I didn't mean it in the sense of screaming "MONKEY! MONKEY! MONKEY!" at the opera, or showing up naked at one's brother's wedding. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm no longer interested. --Iamunknown 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

See User talk:Addict 2006#Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Assessment Alliance - Should this be here? Is this even notable? --Addict 2006 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, delinked non-free pics, and I first thought of marking it as speedy under the reason "It is either a test page or just random nonsense...". I should be bolder... --Addict 2006 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your apology

My problem does not involve collaboration. They are after me personally and want to drive me away from Wikipedia. They have been trying relentlessly for 10 months. Not too long ago they were found to be a sock puppet ring operating since at least last March of 2006. Now that they have been shut down, but they arise in various guises and continue their pursuit of me. For some reason the powers that be do not care about this and so I cannot get help.

Sorry to sound desperate but I am. I have no help and do not understand Wikipedia very well as my primary interest is in writing and editing articles for FA review -- always on the author's request. I create sub articles to explain terms in the articles. Now and then I write little articles on rivers, dams, gulfs, shipwrecks, songs, architectural terms and such. That is all. I am not bad as a person, I wish no one harm, I merely enjoy writing. But I am worn down by the harassment and stalking and am becoming unhinged.

If you have any advice for me, I am open to it. I do not ever edit the articles of those that harass me, although they do on occasion trash mine. So, that's my story (short version). I did make a mistake last summer as my visiting grandchildren had access to my computer without proper supervision from me and either to harm me or for fun, I don't know which, they created some sock puppets on Wikipedia that operated for a short time and were shut down. That was the end of it in terms of my wrong behavior, but the sock puppet ring and its incarnations after it was shut down have been relentlessly after me since. Really, I am just an old lady and don't have the energy, interest, or time to trouble myself with sock puppets to edit articles I don't care about. But their goal is to win and has nothing to do with articles. They will not stop until they drive me off Wikipeia. Thank you for posting to me. I feel like everyone hates me so your post means a lot. Sinceely, --Mattisse 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is not forum shopping, but could you tell me where to get help? Sincerely, Mattisse 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G6 deletion of Image:Cadet2.jpg

Chairboy, I came across File:Cadet2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when I followed a link to it from a derivative work. Why was the image deleted? --Iamunknown 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD Images, article 1. It was a redundant copy of Image:Cadet.JPG. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FA Status for Song Dynasty

For the pictures mentioned (and not mentioned), I have fixed their copyright status to the accurate license tags, and provided copyright links for each. I hope this is enough for you to strike your objection. Thank you,--PericlesofAthens 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song Dynasty. Regards, Iamunknown 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer on Tlx categorization

Hi! How've you been? Nice to hear from you!

Re: I'm not sure that I fully understand the category system used at {{Tlx}}. Why is it included into Category:Interwiki link templates? --Iamunknown 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Tlx(edit talk links history) now takes an optional named parameter 'SISTER=', so that {{Tlx|SISTER=B:|Tl}} should link to Wikibooks, and so forth as can be seen in this excerpt below:

... [[{{{LANG|}}}{{{SISTER|}}}{{ns:Template}}:{{{1|}}}|<!--
--->{{#ifeq:{{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|{{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}]] ...

.

Hence it is both interwiki and internal linking. Other than that, no good reason! <g> Let's see what {{Tlx|SISTER=B:|Tl}} does: {{Tl}}. Yep! Still works! <g> Cheers! // FrankB 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

II, a tiny favor...

Some time back, a few people had troubles with trolls and use of their real names and such, including work related problems, threats, a whole eyebrow raising set of things... several quit wiki altogether, another lost his job. Serious stuff. As a consequence some like BD2412 changed their user name entirely, and went through great deal of effort to go back and expunge thousands of instances of web-searchable name occurences. By similar happenstance, a member of my ex-wife's family found me here on Wkipedia a few months ago... So in a nutshell, I'd prefer both to not be paranoid, but to disconnect as much as possible my work for the foundation and my real life. Hence this, which admittedly is only once removed, but not so intrusive... Also, the other doesn't and won't give many hits so here on the foundation sites, you're better off searching FrankB anyway. Since you are always polite and seem to like starting with such salutations, I'd appreciate it if you just think of me as FrankB... which redirects my way most places iirc. (I'll check that! I also redirect my IP pages, but I may have missed one or three! <g>) Thanks! // FrankB 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template Advice II

Sure, sorry about that. BTW, could you look at Template:Tlp and tell me whether or not you think it could be redirected to Template:Tlx? I think it could without any modifications to the current inclusions of the template, does that make sense? --Iamunknown 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no... This is more like two Wikibooks templates {{Tl1}} and {{Tl2}}, with the extra parameter(s), but here it's used to illustrate a second argument. So, for the simple applications, it's a better choice than Tlx per the below. See also the usage on Template:Tl2(edit talk links history), especially the line: "Template link, up to three parameters. "... which (error needing updated) reflects the history of Tlx until sometime last winter when someone on the commons wanted more parameters changed it so it would take (iirc, originally up to ten--when he was reigned in some, and the current six was settled upon.) more arguments.

One issue with Tlx is because it has the logic tree 'if' structure, it's cumbersome if subst'd. Second, it won't handle a named parameter and neither will Tlp (See below trial with: {{Tlp|Template category|inhib=1}}, note this still fails trying to hoodwink it with {{=}}. Such 'short and sweet subst'able alternatives' have their place in the toolbox, as far as I'm concerned. Getting some clear documentation in place about their respective differences, or coming to grips with such yourself, I agree from experience is, at times, daunting and presents a temptation to cut and simplify by eliminating simple templates in favor of more complicated ones, but it's also got a variety of costs. But that's one of my hopes for Wikiproject Templates and WP:TSP... that little by little we can put together both better /doc pages with some uniform style standards and a comprehensive guide for same as a Tools resource handbook kind of thing ala Meta's original Template Handbook.

IIRC, {{Tlp}} is mainly used administratively, and may in fact be getting substituted when it is used. I'd suggest getting an second opinion however by asking Omniplex what it's function is or was. CBDunkerson (CBD) would be another who may know why it's protected, and has been historically. (I just added a title section, so I'll ask him to look here and comment.) For sure there's some reason it's had that privledged status for a long while now! It may be that it was once heavily used and has been revised out of it's former home(s), in say, Xfd templates or other administrative templates.

Failing all else, you can nominate it on TFD and see what people have to say to defend or agree with a 'weak informational nomination', but I dislike such maneuvers as it costs others time. Posting a query on the talk page is fine though. I like having extra tools in the box... so I wouldn't do that unless the case was clearcut. (Currently it's being solely used on user talks, though that talk page distribution is not atypical for tl_ or lt_ type templates... that is their function and rationale. This one just seems to not have been used on a wikipedia talk namespace page yet. <shrug>)

Trials and comparisons --> {{Tlx|Lts}} - {{Tlx|Lts}} - {{Template category|"inhib=1"}}

({{Tlp|Tlx|Lts}} - {{Tlx|Tlx|Lts}} - {{Tlp|Template category|"inhib{{=}}1"}} )

Hope that helps! // FrankB 06:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC

People's egos are on the line, and often, they've never had their work critically reviewed. It can be very upsetting for them.

But that's too bad; they put their work on the line to get a gold star for their pet article. Do they expect it to be a doddle?

Pleased to see your input; I have to endure the odd battering for holding the line over prose quality. Please keep going.

On a different matter, I do hope that the copy-edited version of the NFC criteria isn't going to be stomped on by Gmaxwell again. I do think I've done the right thing with this ten-day period; thus far, no one has provided feedback. I'll regard it as deliberate obstruction if he does that again. Tony 09:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Hello!

Hello, I noticed that you, or someone editing from your IP address, posted a note to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, signing as Part Deux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you are that user, would please sign in? I do not assume that you are impersonating the user, but it is better to sign in and make sure! Regards, Iamunknown 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a public IP address. However, if you look at my last contribution, you will notice that it was to reset my wikibreak until the yeare 2015. I'm hoping to take a good deal of time off. Thanks. 64.178.96.168 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with your wikibreak. I wish I could take one, but I am too involved. --Iamunknown 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You can take one. You aren't too involved. Life is too important to waste on the computer. Not that I'm a living example of that, but... 64.178.96.168

I know. I am definitely addicted, though. --Iamunknown 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the image: Valley_church_forchtenberg.jpg

I am not thick, but the instructions on simply trying to add this perfectly harmless picture take me ROUND AND ROUND in circles. Can someone PLEASE state in plain English either a) what is wrong with the image or b) what needs doing. In particular your contributions on the image are welcome, but I need guidance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuzzWoof (talk • contribs) 17:36, April 28, 2007 (UTC)

I will reply at Image talk:Valley church forchtenberg.jpg. --Iamunknown 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference page - believe me, I've read it. Time and time again. I give up! I HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but the instructions take you ROUND AND ROUND in circles.

Image:MTV2.gif

You said: I still dispute that the many uses of this non-free image constitute a "fair use"...it currently is used 17 times. Want to make a -separate- fair use rationale for each? I don't think it would fly.

Take note of all the pages on which the logo is used. They are all local affiliates that broadcast MTV2 locally, and they most likely do not have their own local logo. Removing the logo from these pages serves what function, exactly? Furthermore, even if you insist the logo be taken off the pages for these affiliate channels, the fair use rationale still applies for the original MTV2 article. Samvscat 09:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my edit summary was a bit uncivil. I know that the articles that the logo is used in are affiliates and that the logo if used only in the MTV2 article would likely be considered a fair use. My main issue is the number of times that it is used. In the past I removed excess fair use images from multiple pages; I apologise, but I do not feel like performing any further such edits. They need to be done, but they are tedious, unrewarding and expose you to multiple editors who think that you are ruining their work. Instead I am making use of the fair use disputed template.

Unfortunately I do not think that you are framing your question appropriately. This is non-free content; it is an exemption to what we normally permit. We should not be asking the question, "Removing the logo from these pages serves what function, exactly?", we should be asking the question, "How is the use of this non-free logo in these pages justified under Wikipedia:Non-free content?" The use of the logo on numerous MTV2 affiliate articles is, in my opinion, an insignificant and decorative contribution to the encyclopedia and adds no encyclopedic information to the article.

Further, the template fair use rationale should likely be updated. It gives the false notion that by using it the image is free to use in any article. That is not the case. Images must have a separate fair use rationale for each use in an article.

I'm not sure now what your original question was, so I am not sure if I answered it appropriately. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. --Iamunknown 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that the MTV2 logo on all the affiliate articles is not much more than a decoration. However, I'd like to make sure that the MTV2 logo does not get deleted entirely because of this. The logo clearly should remain on the main MTV2 article. --Samvscat 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I processed many non-free logos today as you can see in my contributions. What interested me was a number of logos being used on affiliate stations articles like, in this case, the MTV2 affiliate stations. Most of the articles, upon examination, however, consist of little information; most of it is unsourced or unverifiable and most of it could easily be represented in a tabular format in a single article. I would like to do that, but I expect that I will meet considerable resistance. I am not sure whether I should be bold and merge the articles or consult the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations. To be honest, my only interaction with WikiProjects thus far has not been favourable, so I am inclined to do neither. Do you have any suggestions? --Iamunknown 09:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the general expectation is that every television station is entitled to its own article, even if it's a low-power station that only serves as a 24/7 affiliate for a national network. Although it might make more sense to list this information in a tabular form, and the MTV2 affiliates already have such an article about them (List of MTV2 broadcast affiliates), I'm sure there would be a huge debate over removing the individual articles. --Samvscat 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, I had not seen it before. It does not provide as much information as in the individual articles, but it could possibly be expanded. Looking at the selection of articles from my viewpoint of being concerned about overuse of non-free and unlicensed media, it would be advantageous to combine them into one article; then only two uses (that I can think of) of the MTV2 logo would be necessary - on the main MTV2 article and on the list of MTV2 affiliates. --Iamunknown 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you consult with someone who has more experience with editing television station articles before merging all of those articles. Personally, I've never seen any other circumstance in which a bunch of TV station articles were merged together, so I think it makes more sense to let the individual articles remain. If necessary, remove the MTV2 logo from each of them, but please make sure that the MTV2 logo image itself does not get deleted. --Samvscat 10:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the MTV2 logo from the pages later today or tomorrow. Thank you for the advice. I'm glad we could have this discussion. :-) --Iamunknown 10:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations; we already know what you're doing. You've made an assumption about our WikiProject based on your experience with other WikiProjects; one could question whether you're giving us an assumption of good faith. Come talk to us; I can be sure that you'll get opposition, but there's also a chance you'll get some support. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am Iamunknown; I already know you are doing. You've made an assumption about me based upon your experience with users who maintain stricter interpretations of Wikipedia:Non-free content than you do; one could question whether you're assuming the assumption of good faith. Thank you for the offer, I shall see what I can do. --Iamunknown 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, but it's also incorrect. I have not made any assumptions about you, nor have I accused you of anything. I was merely responding to your own writing, "I am not sure whether I should be bold and merge the articles or consult the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations. To be honest, my only interaction with WikiProjects thus far has not been favourable, so I am inclined to do neither." I only objected to your statement that since your only interaction with WikiProjects had not been favorable, that you were not inclined to talk to us. I see that you have accepted my invitation to comment on WT:TVS; thank you. While I think I understand your initial reluctance, I also think you'll find us generally a fair-minded lot. Also, I apologize for the Outer Limits tone to my last post; it was inappropriate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, are we going to be arguing over semantics and accusations of assume good faith? Really, I'm not interested in that. --Iamunknown 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)