User talk:Veggies/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Many thanks!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your vigilance in reverting the persistent vandalism to my photo, I award you this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Your efforts are truly appreciated. Kafziel Talk 08:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man. Just trying to do some good. -- VegitaU 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion, but on what grounds?

It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots

• for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

How come you decided this screenshot is eligible for deletion? It has a proper fair-use rationale posted under it. 70.118.88.184 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't put copyrighted images on userspace. If you need to link to them, use the [[:Image:IMAGENAME.EXT]] format. Thanks. Second, you need to add a fair use rationale to explain why this picture should be available. Read WP:FURG for more information. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the fair-use rationale was this: It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots... (Then it goes on to explain why. I posted it in full, above.) 70.118.88.184 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you thought wrong…and I don't see what you typed above anywhere on the image description page. -- VegitaU 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's right there for anyone to see. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Here it is, exactly like it reads on the image description page (which, by the way, I did not upload):

{{Non-free web screenshot}}

And what's with the nasty attitude? You seem to have a history of removing images on bogus claims that they somehow violate copyright law, while other outright violations are ignored by you. High-resolution video game screenshots should be more of a concern than small screenshot of a website, which is absolutely relevant to the article. You sure seem trigger-happy with that speedy deletion button. Might I recommend that you look into other, more productive hobbies? 70.118.88.184 20:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's right there for anyone to see.

• No, not quite. I guess you don't know what a fair-use rationale is. You should actually read what I type.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Here it is, exactly like it reads on the image description page (which, by the way, I did not upload):

• *Sarcastic yawn* There's a little something at the bottom of that template (that I notice you "conveniently" left out [Sarcastic snicker]): To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Try following that link there. Surprise yourself. [Sarcastic yelp]

And what's with the nasty attitude?

• Indigestion, your Honor, I swear.

You seem to have a history of removing images on bogus claims that they somehow violate copyright law, while other outright violations are ignored by you.

• ^{[citation needed]}

High-resolution video game screenshots should be more of a concern than small screenshot of a website, which is absolutely relevant to the article.

• Yeah, well, I like to exceed expectations.

"[Something something something trigger happy something something something delete]"

• And you sure seem happy with all of two days under your belt to be coming to me to gripe I wonder how long I can make this sentence you know what they say about the size of a man's hyperlink

Happy editing, my young friend. -- VegitaU 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

image Tagging

Please now have a look at the image page it has a copyright template thumb|250px dont Tag image until you see it.

Yeah, thanks. I do have a watchlist; I am capable of seeing all changes to images I've tagged. Good work. Oh, and sign your posts. -- VegitaU 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Heineken Oude Bruin.JPG

I have reverted your revert. I cant see why move to commons should be vandalism. --80.171.32.210 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the image wasn't on commons when I checked, but now it seems to have been uploaded. -- VegitaU 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden Park edits

Let's get something straight, you're not an admin. Therefore your threats will earn you the same consequences if you're caught by an actual admin. Don't threaten me again or I will report you. In relation to the Golden Park logo, there's nothing wrong with the licensing I put in place, as it's used in many other logos and pics. You're just a "DELETIONIST", one who can't make a relevant edit to Wikipedia and makes up for this lack of relevance by preying on others work, deciding which is good enough for you. As I said, the tag is legit, so leave it alone.

JaMikePA 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHA!!! Oh wait...

*Shaking in boots*

BWAHAHAHA!!! No, not really. I'll tag whatever I feel like needs tagging and warn whoever I feel like warning if they've violated policy. What are you going to do about it? I'll tell you: get a fair-use rationale up for every image I tagged or else they'll be deleted. Now, have I made myself "relevantly" clear? Happy editing! -- VegitaU 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've already reported your actions! JaMikePA 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] *Smug smile* -- VegitaU 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Devil Rays Logo

Full reason for fair use rationale was given in image page. Inherently copyrighted. No free replacement. It's the same as every logo on the site. If you have an actual problem, please express this with more than a standard response. --Silent Wind of Doom 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. My dissatisfaction has now been specified. And how about putting up more than the standard "logo" fair use rationale stamp that's been used across the board? Happy editing. -- VegitaU 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

google earth

I agree that, we need some image for illustration, but because Google Earth images are copyrighted, why don't we use a low resolution image instead? May be the screen that's shown up when Google earth start's up? And why is Manhattan chosen? Because the page was written by someone from manhattan? To be generic, the image should be replaced with the startup image or may be the snapshot of Googleplex complex on Google Earth

What do u say? Reply on my talk page. Mugunth 13:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

google earth screenshot

I've changed google earth screenshot.. Let me know if it's fine with you...

Mugunth 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this enough for Fair Use Rationale?

Rationale for the fair use of this image in the article Google Earth

• No free images can ever exist, and, given the nature of the work, none are likely to be released.
• The image is used for identification and informational purposes, and is not believed to detract significantly from the original work.
• The image adds significant value to the article.
• The image has been purposefully resized to a lower resolution.
• Not intended to cause any financial damage to Google
• Screenshot is made for educational use
• Wikipedia is a non-profit organization
• It shows the product that is described in the article.

Mugunth 14:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it satisfies everything in WP:FURG it should be good to go. Try this:

{{Non-free use rationale |Article=Google Earth |Description=Low resolution screenshot of Google Earth [[virtual globe]] program |Source=http://earth.google.com |Portion=Full screenshot |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=To illustrate the Google Earth program in a functioning state |Replaceability=Not freely }}

The image should be reduced to 300 px width, not height, but it's a great improvement. -- VegitaU 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Check it out now... Made the necessary changes... Mugunth 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, why 300 px width? Is that a rule..? I've changed it though.. Mugunth 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for butting in): 300px width is not a rule, it's a guideline followed by some editors who frequently deal with images. Generally, all fair use images should be of a reduced quality, i.e. low resolution, however the specific resolution depends on the purpose and nature of use. For screenshots of copyrighted software, the image should be large enough to allow the reader to discern individual GUI elements yet small enough to disallow someone to recreate a full-quality version of the GUI. In this case, 500x300 is sufficient. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's not exactly a hard-line rule, but it is anotated in Template:Non-free use rationale as a footnote to define what "Low resolution" actually means. Otherwise, I suppose, "low res" would be in the eyes of the beholder. Anyways, it says that anything above 300 px in width or height should have an explanation as to why it is needed. In this case, I felt the reader didn't need to see every tiny little feature in the image to be able to understand Google Earth as a virtual globe program. -- VegitaU

I had taken a screen shot of an aerial vie of kibbutz Eyal (I think that along with an expanded info box for both kibbutzim and moshavim, an aerial shot is the best means of showing sevral things: 1. the position of the settlement in relationship to nearby villages or site, thoroughfares and major routes - my screenshot showed the postion relative to Qalqilyah and Khokhav Yair, as well as the position relative to the Eyal Interchange for Kvish 6); 2. the layout of the setllement - most readers think that all kibbutzim and moshavim are laid out in a single pattern, such as the centric pattern of the classic moshav - but this is not the case. But given that I used a Google screen shot, what specifically should be used to ratonalize fair use of the aerial photo? As mentionned by other contributors - Google Earth is a freely distributed software program, and the aerial and map photos are not propietary. So, please tell me how I should provide satisfactory rational for fair use (like a photograph, would you advise that it is acceptable to state that I, myslef, captured the screen shot? SZAgassi 12:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jin-class sub.jpg

Thank you for your interest in submarine survellience. Someone else corrected any problems that might have been associated with this image several months ago. If you believe there is still a problem please contact that person and come to some agreement with respects to how the image should be handled. Selevercin 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in submarine surveillance, I'm interested in fair use images. You didn't provide a fair-use rationale and your image has been deleted. Have a nice day! -- VegitaU 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Hello, thank you for your concerns however please read what I wrote before making personal attacks. As you are not aware I will inform you that government material is public domain. If that is a Greek textbook it is most likely a government document and therefore public domain. And please do not impersonate administrators by claiming you can block me. Ireland101

Then, add the appropriate copyright tag as well as the source. If you delete the CSD tag again without doing so, I sure-as-hell will have you blocked. Have a nice day! -- VegitaU 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and an unaware as to where to find these "copyright tags". Ireland101 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay

All you had to was explain to me nicely. I don't want to start attackacking people as a used to --Angel David 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I can explain copyright violations "nicely", but it's good you didn't decide to start attacking—you'd be enjoying a nice block. -- VegitaU 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay...--Angel David 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Guernica image

Hi, what's the problem with using this image in suffering? It is used for instance in Guernica (painting)... --Robert Daoust 15:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Picasso's works are still copyrighted, so for every copyrighted image, you'll need a fair use rationale and an image depicting suffering can probably be found from different free-use sources. Picasso, I'm sure, isn't the first person to paint suffering. Also, images from such things as the Nanking Massacre or the Warsaw Ghetto could probably suffice. -- VegitaU 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested images would not do because the article Suffering covers the whole range of all possible sufferings. Guernica has this unique quality of depicting suffering in humans and animals with a part of abstraction that leaves room for both subtile (light) and conspicuous (heavy) suffering. Who decides that the use rationale is fair? --Robert Daoust 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can write a fair-use rationale for it, if you wish. I doubt anyone is going to challenge it, but I suppose a consensus of people decide if its fair. -- VegitaU 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much. --Robert Daoust 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Le Bal

Sir Would you be kind enough to remove all the tags from my recently created article. I don't know why this is considered "unverified" or that it contains "original research" It patently doesn't. It is an entry about a newly re published novel by a very important Russian / French author named Irene Nemirovsky. Please take the time to aquaint yourself with the wikipedia entry about Nemirovsky. There you will find a reference to "Le Bal". I haven't made it up, you know! She is a highly acclaimed author, and more of her work is being discovered or re-issued, due to her growing popularity in Europe. Please therefore remove the tags Thank you Luckyles 08:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll remove the templates…once you satisfy all their criteria. Meaning:

• Cite your sources
• Clean up the structure and flow
• Wikify the entries

-- VegitaU 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, I have cited my sources, so you can get rid of that one. As for structure and flow, that is down to your esteemed opinion, is it? You presumably hold some exalted position in wikipedia to be able to pronounce on a contribution? Are you a person who helps on wikipedia, or do you just like to sit there and delete images and slap tags on peoples work? Vairry interesting......Luckyles 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, I have cited my sources, so you can get rid of that one.

• Must be some new kind of invisible citations, because I don't see them. [2]

As for structure and flow, that is down to your esteemed opinion, is it?

• Nope. Educate yourself.

You presumably hold some exalted position in wikipedia to be able to pronounce on a contribution?

• Yup. It's called "editor".

Are you a person who helps on wikipedia, or do you just like to sit there and delete images and slap tags on peoples work?

• I like to do whatever I can to help, whether that means tagging images for deletion or tagging articles for cleanup. I think my three barnstars can attest to that.

Vairry interesting......

• *cricket, cricket*

-- VegitaU 02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• he loves to tag peoples edits as vandalism. The last thing I edited while I can see why you may have removed it, was not an act of Vandalism. I added a reference to a mockumentary about Kazakhstan, you tagged it as vandalism, when actually I went to that page looking for the mockumentary... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.224.6 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

HA! [3] -- VegitaU 20:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I edited the remarks, but the fact remains that they are true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.224.6 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Krisme.jpg

Please be aware that the above image has been given to us by Gary Howe, the subject of the article and he has released it free of copyright to wikipedia. This has been verified to me via email. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoopsie! Mah' bad, then. It didn't look sourced and that user had a prior history of uploading potentially unfree images. -- VegitaU 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I originally thought he was uploading copyrighted images, but it turns out that the user is the subject of the article and has been kind enough to give us them. I'd add an OTRS tag, but this was verified to me privately, do you know of any other tags that could be added to show that he has verified it to me? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warnings on User talk:Erudecorp

I noticed your warnings on User talk:Erudecorp. While I agree with you that his edits were inappropriate, IMO your warnings were also inappropriate.

In the first place he did not upload an image; so {{uw-upload1}} gives an inappropriate message. Furthermore, although his edits to Talk:Triptych were disimprovements, they were well intentioned; so the use of any uw template was inappropriate. The personalized part of your message contained all that needed to be said.

Although it was inappropriate (and annoying) for him to edit above your signature, a {{uw-vandalism4im}} was totally uncalled for. Even the personalized part of your message is a bit excessive.

I suggest that you edit both messages, removing the template parts and leaving just the personalized parts. --teb728 08:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad that you're stressing over someone else's warnings, but I'm not changing anything so you can stop holding your breath. Erudecorp was screwing around trying to be funny by hogging up resources and greatly exponentiating the Triptych article size. I removed it (without incident) from the article AND talk page. He decided it'd be a good idea to post it again. I gave him a low-level warning about it and he edited my comment (a HUGE 'no-no') so I gave him a sterner warning.

So, no, I'm not changing a single thing, I'll be monitoring Erudecorp's contributions even closer than before, and I'll be watching all related pages in case you decide it's a good idea to do it yourself. You have a problem with that? Take it up with an admin.

Happy editing! -- VegitaU 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you misunderstood my comments. I didn’t intend to write anything that would get you so upset. And let me say I appreciate the work you do fighting vandalism and policing non-free use compliance.

But I wish you would reread WP:CIVIL. When you respond with hostility and sarcasm, as you did above, it often escalates problems rather than solving them. (I wonder why you fantasized that I would reassert Erudecorp’s reverted contributions, when I said explicitly that they were inappropriate. Have you perhaps learned from experience that your hostility breeds that kind of reaction?) Also, please have a look at this section and the next for two contrasting ways of dealing with a problem user. --teb728 08:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify your deletion

I'm a little confused as to why my entry for Squarespace and the logo I uploaded to it were both deleted.

You wrote: Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to :Image:Squarespace logo.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Don't upload copyrighted works under free-use or public-domain tags! This is your only warning. VegitaU 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Senior Designer and partner at Squarespace. The text and images were not borrowed from anywhere. We wrote the text, and we own the logo. If this is not acceptable for an entry, can you give me some pointers as to what I can post? Blogger, Typepad, and Movable Type use screenshots of their homepages. Would this be acceptable? pixelgirl 11:41 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't so much upset about the image as I was about it being uploaded under a public-domain or free-use tag. Meaning, anyone can use the logo for any purpose. Anyone can upload a copyrighted image, but it has to have a fair-use rationale. That's what images from articles like Blogger are: copyrighted, with fair-use rationales. If you truly are the copyright holder for the logo, you can email a release to the Communications committee. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying -- will do! pixelgirl 23:32 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Port of Spain article

Hi VegitaU,

I appreciate your comments on my page. But I strongly believe that before you take the liberty to destroy the contributions of another user who took the time to research and reference all of his contributions, because of layout problems, you should at least be polite enough to give the person a period of time to correct their contribution. I am very upset at what you did, since it represents hours of work and I am looking at my options for reporting you to the moderators of this website.

WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DELETE ALMOST AN ENTIRE ARTICLE WITHOUT FAIR WARNING?

I believe you may have done or are doing good work for wikipedia, but your sense of power and arrogance has obviously gone to your head. Just because this article is from a third world country does not mean I am not connected. THIS IS NOT THE LAST YOU WILL HEAR OF THIS!

--Christianwelsh (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, dude. Worst-case scenario, just click "revert" on my edit. Report me away! -- VegitaU (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the heads up :) --Christianwelsh (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Who gives a fuck? Are you really that offended that you'd block me? The H-Man2 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8