JimmmyThePiep

Welcome

Hello, JimmmyThePiep, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Caper13 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Have to run to the grocery store, but I'll write up what I know about images and post it to your userpage later. I wrote something for someone else once so I'll try to find that and add what I've learned since then. Generally though, you need to upload images that you want to appear on your userpage (or elsewhere in wikipedia) and there are restrictions on what can be uploaded. More later. Caper13 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters tho

Click on the "Picture Tutorial" link in the Welcome message above. That has the mechanics of inserting a photo into a page Caper13 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool; thanx

See, I didn't even know how to send emails.

I found the code for pictures in the tutorial. I'm still drawing a picture in Illustrator though, so it's gonna be a few days before I'd upload anything, but I see the upload tutorial now too.

Thanx again!JimmmyThePiep 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Cool, I see you were able to make an image appear on your userpage. That tutorial is actually pretty good at giving you the mechanics of how upload and make an image appear on a page. One thing I find useful is to also look at other images on pages, edit the text and see what parameters they used. Then you can put them into your page, try changing them a bit, hit preview and see how the change affected things in preview mode and keep tweaking. The most complicated thing in uploading is putting a proper copyright tag on the image. Otherwise, someone is going to delete it. Speaking in broad categories, there are two types of images. Copyrighted and Public Domain. Within the copyrighted group (which includes most photos you will find on the internet), some might allow some use of the images in other contexts but for the most part Wikipedia doesnt allow you to upload copyrighted images, and even when a copyrighted image can be used in limited cases (see WP:Fair Use you can NEVER put fair use or copyrighted photos on your user page. Only public domain stuff (no copyright, copyright expired, copyright released, various creative commons licenses, etc. The good news is that except for extreme cases, Images you create yourself you are free to upload to Wikipedia and use them on your user page (you just need to release copyright and allow anyone else to use them too). When you upload the image, you have to specify the license in the summary. You can see a list of the various license tags here [1]. If you have specific questions (and feel free, because copyright and the way WP handles it is fairly complicated...I am just getting a handle on it now) feel free to ask. Caper13 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your photo deleted.

I'm glad to see you are building some pages for your local areas. If you didn't already realize it, I am from Canada too and have built a few similar pages, eg Albert Bridge, Nova Scotia. Your photo was probably deleted because its copyright status was considered invalid because it was licensed only for use on Wikipedia (the attribution thing wasnt a big deal. See here for more info [2]. This is what I was getting at when I said that determining the proper copyright tags to use on the photo is the most complicated part of the whole thing. Wikipedia is (in my opinion) ridiculously strict in their licensing demands (almost to the point of obnoxiousness at times). For you to post this photo that someone else owns, you basically need them to release almost all rights to the image (into the public domain) allowing anyone to use it for any purpose, anyone to modify it in any way, and then use it for any purpose, or use it for commercial purposes. They can require attribution, and the creative commons 2.5 license will effectively make it too complicated for anyone to use it for commercial purposes (though theoretically they could). So what you need is for the "owner" of the photo to explicitly tell you that they will allow those things...and an easy way to do this is have them license it under the provisions of Creative Commons Attribute Sharealike 2.5 (which requires attribution to them, and the sharealike portion from what I understand is the part that makes it very difficult for most people to use the photo commercially (though not impossible). Here is an explanation of this license here [3]. So if the guy says to you in an email that he will license the photo under Creative Commons Attribute Sharealike 2.5, then you are fine, and you simply put the tag (but with double parenthesis) {cc-by-sa-2.5|Caper13} to get:

in the summary of the photo. (with the owners name in place of mine. See the photo I attached to Gordon United Church, Reserve Mines for the specific code to put in.

Another option, if this church you are talking about is close enough is to take a drive over and take your own photo. Then you can release it under the same license yourself (as I did with the photo of Gordon United Church) and you don't have to ask anyone for anything. That is a photo I took while home on vacation. You could also ask someone in the town to take a couple of photos for you and 'give' them to you. Then you would own them.

Another option, which is a little dicier, is to use a copyrighted photo (the one you found on that website for example) without permission, but as a fair use image. Fair use images are kind of a crapshoot depending on what they are and how they are used. Fair use images are allowed to be used on Wikipedia when no free image exists (free being in the sense of being licensed under a license that allows the types of things talked about above), or could be created. Its the 'could be created' part that is open to interpretation. Some people have taken that to such an extreme that they will delete a fair use image of any person or thing, on the grounds that someone/somewhere could go and take a picture of them, therefore it is possible to create a free image. Other people are not so strict, so it really depends on who pokes their nose into it and how they interpret things. Any administrator can delete any image they want if they feel justified, and some have pretty extreme positions on 'fair use'. So, you could upload that image as fair use, with the proper fair use rationale, but given that this is a building in a public place, I wouldnt be surprised if someone claimed it didnt qualify. I know, its pretty stupid that you can't use a photo that someone gives you permission to use on Wikipedia, but theoretically it might be ok if you claim you DONT have their permission.

One thing you could do also, is if there are any old (and I mean really old) postcards of the church on Ebay or something, the copyright might have expires on them depending on how old. I did that with one of the old photos on the Albert Bridge page.

This make any sense? You aren't bothering me btw. Ask any questions you want. Caper13 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

jimmmyThePiep

Ah, it seems I've mispelled my username, both by accident and on purpose; instead of jimmyThePipe, I've added an extra 'm' and switched around the 'e' and 'p'. ... so it's JimmmyThePiep, which is wrong. JimmmyThePiep 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bella goth

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bella goth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 07:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i was letting you know that someone else had proded it not me so i do not what they found with it it was wrongOo7565 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. JimmmyThePiep 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ah I love longer articles. Abbas Kiarostami I wrote the majority and it succeeded. For me its about content as long as it is very well written and concise neough thats ok. It still provides all the relevant info very well. Saludos! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bond women

Ah ha Meester Jimmy I've been expecting you - thats one for thought :.

Off hand I can think of:

1.Elekra King (obivously) 2.Onatopp (indirectly by helicopter) 3.Naomi from Spy who loved me in the helicopter (very sexy girl killed by Roger Moore via a rocket from the sub lotus car. 4.Fatima Blush (rocket pen) (Never Say Never Again -unofficial Bond

Miranda Frost I believe was killed by Halle Berry and Rosa Klebb definately killed by Romanova with a gun.

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You could also say that Bond killed my red-haired henchwomen Fiona Volpe in Thunderball. Connery knew his chasers were about the kill him and he turned at the last moment so they would kill her ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. May I say something as a Bond's huge fan too? I desagree that Xenia could be included in this list. See the scene. And....Caroline Munro (Naomi) rules!!!! Cheers!Films addicted 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Films_addicted

Films, it's not really cold-blooded murder, but consider: Had James not shot down the helicoptor, Xenia would still be alive. As a direct result of James' actions, she did die. .. I'm not a lawyer, but they probably have a law which would apply in this situation.

.. But, I think the reference is referring to four actual murders, like with Electra King. JimmmyThePiep 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BellaGoth.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BellaGoth.jpeg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right; the article was deleted a month or two ago. I guess I just assumed they deleted the picture as well. (I'm not sure if you removed it, and I'm not sure how to remove it myself. But if not, go for it.) JimmmyThePiep 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable / non-notable persons

Hi. It looks like another editor took care of the matter of the non-notable in the Formosa, Ontario article. I'd concur with his actions. And while I understand your concerns about deletion (had to fight to keep an article once), I don't think you need to worry about it in this case. Cheers, Blotto adrift 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just being precautious; my deleted article was about a fictional video game chick with a fanbase best described as 'curious as cats'. (I've heard of people screwing up their entire game history, just to try and get this character.)

.. so to assume Small Town X would also be deleted if somebody noticed it wouldn't be much of a stretch for me. Anyway, thanx for the advice! JimmmyThePiep 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bella Goth

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bella Goth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tresiden (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)