User talk:Calliopejen1/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bundy Image Removal

Collapsing to restart discussion - I didn't realize we were talking about two different Bundy photos... my bad.

You were Bold and then your bold edit was reverted. The next step is to discuss it. These images have been here through the GAN, and there's no deadline to remove them until they are deleted from the Commons. You people trying to eliminate these images are not even having the common courtesy to allow editors to contact the proper agencies who can hopefully clear this up. Please be patient: those of us who have worked very hard on this article for months and years are trying to be. But this is most likely where the FAC will be withdrawn. Doc talk 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing: I notice that the license to File:Ted Bundy mug shot.jpg was changed to a PD one, assuming that it was a mug shot taken by an employee of the State of Florida and is therefore in the public domain. I wouldn't naturally assume that it's always the case: note the photo credit on this mug shot. For the Bundy photo in the infobox there is no photo credit for the same image (from the same agency).[1] Not that that necessarily means anything. Doc talk 03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I put them back because no one has made any credible argument that the photos are properly licensed. Whether or not the FAC gets withdrawn, I'm pretty sure the photos will be deleted eventually. I don't think this issue was addressed at all in the GAN. I'm not sure what your point is about the Casey Anthony photo--it's also PD-FLgov.[2] The work of any state employee (including people at the sheriff's office) is PD per the commons tag. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
But it's credited to UPI Photo. The WP Casey Anthony photo does not even list a source, let alone a provable photo credit (which clearly does exist). Doc talk 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The UPI photo credit is just because photo agencies can also distribute PD images from time to time (that's why it also notes that it was taken by the sheriff's office). Obviously this was taken by a state employee - it's a jail booking photo. Of course a commercial photo agency did not take her booking photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So you are contending that while UPI has a temporary right to credit the image as theirs, they have no permanent right to do so. Is this correct? Doc talk 11:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
No... this photo is public domain, so anyone can do whatever they want with it. I could distribute it to a paper if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean I own any rights to it. Struck "can" in my prior answer in case it was confusing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"Please fill out form for pricing information for the above image." Check the lower left corner under "License photo", directly across from "Enlarge Photo". UPI is not charging for this image? Really? Doc talk 12:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They might be. It's public domain, they can do whatever they want. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They are charging for its use. If it is public domain then they have no claim to the copyright, yet they are charging for its use. This is possibly also the case with some of the Florida Archive pictures. Do you see where I'm getting at? Doc talk 14:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kind of.... But just because they're charging for its use does not show that it's copyrighted. I could charge for its use if I wanted. That's what public domain means--anyone can do whatever they want with the image. (On the other hand, someone would be stupid to pay UPI--or me--for a public domain image.) I agree that it's analogous to the Florida images in that it's yet another false claim of ownership. (Though UPI may never have even claimed to own it--their customers may just be paying because it's convenient, or because they don't know better.) UPI has no rights over this photo, just like the florida archives probably have no rights to many of the images in their collection. (Regardless of whether they possess physical copies of the images.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone would be doubly stupid to pay both UPI Note that the "wiki" link here links to our article: the irony is delicious ;> and Corbis for the exact same image if in fact it were already available under a share-alike license like what the Florida resource may or may not assert. Who really owns all the exclusive rights to that image? We've got to research it to find out. Doc talk 15:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
No one owns that image. It's public domain - see {{
PD-FLgov}}. Calliopejen1 (talk
) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The image I linked to above certainly wasn't always in the public domain, as it was at one time credited to Wide World Photos. Now it is claimed simultaneously by UPI, Corbis and the state of Florida archives. I'm seeing a general confusion over whether an image is truly PD or CC A-2.0, with that discrepancy hinging on an image being "okay" for inclusion in the article. Am I in the right ballpark? Doc talk 06:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not really. That image was always in the public domain. It was taken by a Florida state employee because all Florida booking photos are. (Clearly a commercial photo agency did not take this photo.) Any image taken by a Florida state employee is in the public domain, with limited exceptions that don't apply here (see the tag). Anyone can distribute a public domain image. That is why so many people are distributing it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry I see where some of the confusion is. I assumed that the photos you were linking to were of the mugshot!! (Because that's what we had been talking about earlier.) Let me investigate more before I reply.
The behaviour of UPI and Corbis is not unusual, in that they're charging for something that is elsewhere available for free. To buy such a service suggests poor research beforehand, and selling such a service is perhaps opportunistic, but neither of these are legally actionable.
However you have now also accused the Florida State photo collection of making a fraudulent claim, by their claiming to be in a position to grant licences for use to materials where their copyright is held by another. That is a serious accusation to make of a library or archive. It might even be considered to be a libelous statement about them. Do you have any evidence to back that up? It is a very different situation to UPI, both in the background to it, and in the severity of your accusation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I was just trying to simplify things here so that you understood me. I'm not accusing them of fraud, just saying the template should be deleted. It's not even clear that the archive has ever claimed it owns the rights to these images. The email is confused and only says is that Wikipedia can use them and that it's not a copyright problem. That could equally be a statement that the archive won't take action against wikipedia, or that the archive thinks Wikipedia is okay under the fair use doctrine. Or the random employee that responded to that email could be confused. That has happened often. If you really think the archive owns the rights to this collection, I'd recommend emailing them and getting someone in an obvious position of authority to confirm--explicitly--that they own the copyrights to the photos. So far, I don't see any statement to that effect. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony mugshot

That is {{PD-FLGov}} because it was taken by a Florida state employee. The credit here does not indicate otherwise - the paper is just distributing a public domain image, which is totally permissible and happens all the time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy mugshot (Florida)

That is {{PD-FLGov}} because it was taken by a Florida state employee. Because it is public domain, the "permission" from the florida archives is meaningless - anyone can already do whatever they want without abiding by the archives' wishes - that's what public domain means. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy 7/28/1978 photo

Everything is copyrighted by default - we need a specific reason to think that this image is public domain and/or freely licensed. The full(er?) image shows him being sworn in in court.[3] I've never heard of state government employees serving as photographers in courtrooms, though the article makes clear that there were tons of reporters there. (Which suggests that some newspaper or image agency would own the copyright.) The Corbis image page doesn't really give us any clues to the copyright status, because Corbis credits it to the Bettman collection, which includes at least some public domain images (images from the 19th century are PD). It's not crazy that UPI is also licensing this photo[4] - if the image is copyrighted, maybe UPI has an agreement with Corbis or an agreement with the photographer (many contractual arrangements could allow for this). If the image is free, of course two different agencies could be distributing it. So really all we have here is a default rule that it's copyrighted and common sense telling us it was taking by a commercial news photographer. We have no particular reason to think that the Florida Archives own the copyright to this image. And if the Florida Archives don't own the copyright, then their permission is meaningless. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

S&M

Was your copy-editing on the S&M article to do with the FAC? Calvin • 999 14:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

More or less... I saw it there at FAC, and I went to check it out. It's pretty discouraging that you undid the whole thing instead of assessing individual changes. I think the prose is at a very amateur level (nowhere near FA level), so I was trying to help out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't to know that what you had done was copyediting for FAC, because you hadn't stated that you had made those changes on the FAC talk page. I was getting confused because the reviewers are telling me to do something, then I'd go to change it, and I couldn't find what it was that they wanted changed, so I couldn't tell them that it has been done. I'm not saying I don't appreciate your help, but a lot of what you had removed hadn't been listed as things that needed to be removed on the FAC talk page, meaning that they clearly think it is fine as it is, and was also information which I was told to include during the GAN process; thus you was removing content which made it a GA in the first place, such as in the lead. I prefer to do things myself, so I know what's been done and what needs to be done so i can keep track of things, and I kinda feel like it is my responsibility to make the changes considering I nominated it, that's just my opinion. And I did assess each of your edits, I looked at them all, but it was easier for me to undo all of them so I could start from where I left off. Don't take this offensively! Calvin • 999 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The prose needs a huge overhaul. The other reviewer left some minor suggestions but IMO it needs basically a rewrite with much of the same info (but some details of limited value removed) before it can be FA. I was hoping to help, but it sounds like there are some
ownership issues, and I don't care that much. Calliopejen1 (talk
) 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but it would have been helpful to see what you had edited on the talk page so I knew. And I really disagree with the ownership thing. I don't expect to just sit here and do nothing and expect everyone to do everything for me, I am just very dedicated to what I am involved in and like to see things through from start to finish, surely you see what I mean? Of course anyone can edit the article, but I just think it's helpful to say in the edit summaries that it was for FAC and to write on the talk page what you had addressed. I've tried explaining myself and my actions which I think are valid, but if you don't care, then there's nothing else I can say. Calvin • 999 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether it was for FAC was irrelevant. I copyedited the article to improve the prose quality, which would have been a good thing irrespective of the FA nom. It was clear from my edit summary that I was copyediting. If I was going to explain every place where the prose was awkward it would have taken hours. As it was, I spent a long time doing that editing. I didn't want to leave a very negative comment on the FAC page, so I figured I'd just try to work on the prose before other reviewers got around to looking at the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and for you to just revert all my edits wholesale is basically the definition of page ownership. It would be way too hard for me to suggest changes individually for you to implement because it needs a huge overhaul by a skilled editor. My point about not caring is that I tried to be helpful, and you just reverted everything I had done. If you want my help, I'm happy to offer it, but this is not my area of interest -- I was just trying to be nice. If you don't want my help, I won't help -- I have nothing invested in that article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It is relevant, because for all I knew you was just some random editor making unnecessary changes, which lets face it, loads of editors do. Feel free to copy and paste those edits back in, just as long as they don't conflict with what I have changed per FAC, but some of your edits, like the removal of the live performance info in the Lead, I didn't agree with. And I did provide an explanation in my revert edit summary, and if you'll notice, I did say "good faith". I never said you weren't trying to be nice, and I did say above that I appreciate your help, but I don't know what else I can say. Calvin • 999 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to make my edits all over again - if you want them, you can reenter them. (It's not my fault you removed them!) In the future please don't assume that contributors to articles you are working on are "random editors making unnecessary changes." (Also, "for all I knew" - if you had questions, you could have glanced at my userpage which would have told you that that was unlikely to be the case.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
But then it's not listed that you made the edits? I don't have a problem with what you changed, it's just that it made it difficult for me to see what had and hadn't been addressed because I couldn't find some things. I don't want any hard feeling. Calvin • 999 16:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want hard feelings either... I don't need to be credited for those edits - you can feel free to put them back yourself. As for the stuff I removed, I didn't take out much. I removed the live performance stuff from the intro because I found it to be a somewhat boring list. Of all the things I took out, this I think would be the most justified for you to put back in. Maybe instead just highlight the premiere instead of the other performances to avoid it being list-y. The Today show sentence was awkwardly long and got into uninteresting detail. I condensed the Britney/Rihanna stuff because now, looking back, we don't need a blow-by-blow of the twitter exchanges - it's not interesting to the reader because we know how it comes out in the end. I also cut the Britney quote to the most relevant parts and took out some offhand comment about the music video because it never happened and it's just not that important that Rihanna once said it would be cool to make a music video. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Calvin • 999 16:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added 95% of your edits back in, I re-worded one or two things, and decided not to completely remove a few other things from the article, as I feel they are necessary to keep. Thanks. Calvin • 999 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: S&M source

The source did not claim that the clip was banned, but rather that it was "censored" in 11 countries. Only in China, Malaysia, and Indonesia that the clip was entirely banned. DHN (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Francisco de Zurbarán

Thanks for getting it done. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do much yet! I was going to translate more of the Spanish and/or French versions of the article, but there are a lot of inconsistencies between the different-language versions. And what look like the best sources aren't available online. So for now I think I'm going to hold off... He's one of my favorite painters, so hopefully I can improve his article eventually. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Civil War

Can you copy the infobox from Spanish wiki and update and I will fill in the missing links like

Asturias Campaign, Bombing of Jaén etc?♦ Dr. Blofeld
14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome thanks! Busy creating geography categories for each Spanish province right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Very stubby but I'd have given up on the task otherwise. Besides with expansions like this things are looking up.. Needs a copyedit and proof read though and a number of capital letters needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Attribution requirements

Please see my reply at FPC, is acceptable now? or should I remove the whole thing?   ■ MMXX  talk  19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the suggested attribution for now, until I could think of a better way. if I remember correctly, the issue of attributing images used in Wikipedia articles has been raised before somewhere, I remember some people were saying that name of authors should be showed in the article, but currently as it's agreed, only way that viewers can see the authors name is by clicking on images, that's why I believe providing a link to the image is the best way of attributing the works, but perhaps for printed media that's not the best idea, yet it is useful and effectual, please continue the discussion here because I don't like the FPC get full of comments and no votes also I would like to know your opinion about the FP candidate itself, if it is possible. thank you.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there has been some debate over adding image credits on the image page - that's a sort of related issue about how to implement credits in a reasonable way. I suppose in certain cases it might be reasonable to have a link, if--say--that's how the website did it typically. But maybe a link wouldn't be reasonable where the website credits other photo authors by name... I'm kind of neutral about the photomontage - there are some places where I thought the cutouts could be done better, but I didn't think it's worth opposing over. And now I'm not seeing the problems when I open it again... I'll have another look in a bit and add a vote. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you, please check the alternative version, I did some fixes to the alt version, but not the original.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
About the attribution, if someone wants to use this work in a printed media, in video or TV, what is the best way of attribution in your opinion? considering that they might not be able to list all the names of works and authors.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive1

Hi Jen :) How have you been my friend? So I've nominated this article for PR, because I'm really looking for that star this time lol. I've gotten all the source issues covered, yet now come the prose. Can you take a look and give me some feedback? Sarastro already gave loads of tips, but I need advice in terms of who can help me achieve these prose. The guild? Maybe some other course of action that I'm not aware of can be taken? I think the prose are pretty good, but at FAC they like clear and concise, and IMO "lifeless: lol. Any ideas and/or suggestions? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work thus far! It is very much appreciated :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jen. Not to sound selfish or pressuring at all, just simply wondering. Will you get around to the rest? Or have you done what you can? Thanks anyway :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'll try to work on it a bit more later - I was hoping to go through the whole thing eventually, but there's only so much Mariah Carey I can take at once! Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Haha don't worry :) Take all the time you need, literally! Mimi appreciated you ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jen :) Do you know how to remove watermarks? [File:Shake it off33.jpg This] photo I uploaded has black logo on the corner, without cropping (or else nevermind) can you remove it? Also, please don't reduce it or crop, I'm going to do that after. A million Thanks :-D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Aapchaur

Check it out and Nepal on Google Earth. Unbelievable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a category for Modelling agencies or fashion in New York or something? I've created Zoli Agency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

ARKive

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive - keep up the good work! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Article

The article you created

Star cactus
, has already been created.

See Astrophytum asterias. Its the same thing just that it uses the scientific name. This is against wikipedia rules, so please delete your article as it is newer, allow me to use the db-a10 or db-same deletion templates on it. You can edit Astrophytum asterias with the info on your page to add anything it Astrophytum asterias lacks. Thankyou. Zenithfel (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just realized this - that's why I added the merge tags. (More sensible next step than deletion.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
My fault for suggesting at the Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive project that it should be a new article. I've merge them and redirected the new creation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

FAOL

Given that a number of people spent a lot of time on WP:FAOL it's quite disappointing to see "this project was an ill-conceived mess. please discuss at WP:TRANSLATION before re-starting indiscriminate tagging" and "the process proposed here is not really helpful. redirecting". Please point me to the discussion where it was decided to remove all of this and where reasons why it is so bad are noted. violet/riga [talk] 21:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Further: You may wish to go through all of the double redirects that have now been caused, or more appropriately MFD the page. violet/riga [talk] 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion for deleting the indiscriminately-applied tags is here. I don't have an issue with the idea generally, but all these lists of articles were drawn up ages ago, and generally are totally useless. Please un-redirect any list you find with mainly valid translation requests. I just don't think these lists are useful in the least - it would be better to start from scratch by looking at what's currently featured (many have been delisted and many of the newly listed ones are higher quality). The double redirects will be fixed by a bot, so that's not an issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
As you say the discussion was about the templates and not the page. It does have potential and is a good idea (perhaps in a modified form) so it's quite objectionable to see it described as an "ill-conceived mess". violet/riga [talk] 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The point of the project was to tag every article as step one. That was surely an ill-conceived mess. The idea of translating is a good one, but that's not a sensible way to go about it at all. The project basically only got as far as applying the useless tags. I don't think translating high-quality content is a bad idea in the least, but those lists are not useful. And anyways I think redirecting is the best course, to centralize all the various dead translation projects into one place to at least point everyone in the same direction if they're interested in reviving some sort of collaboration. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really seem that different to {{tl:expand language}} so maybe you're just removing something that already did what you have tried to achieve but in a more structured manner. No, I don't really believe that but there are similarities in approach. FAOL did actually yield some good results and has a strong basic idea. That you can't see it is not a problem, that you have not handled it with respect to editors who put a lot of time into it shows a poor approach. violet/riga [talk] 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jen, I also see it as an "ill-conceived mess".♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I will have to consider you rude as well. violet/riga [talk] 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion nominations

Hello Calliopejen1, Given the results of your nomination of File:Chinese_PWs_Battle_of_Kapyong_24_April_1951_(AWM_P04953).jpg in May was a clear cut keep on the grounds that the image is PD ([5]), your renomination of this image for deletion and the nominations of the similar File:NZ_artillery_25_pounder_Korea_1951_(AWM_HOBJ2238).jpg and File:Chinese_PWs_Battle_of_Kapyong_24_April_1951_(AWM_P04953).jpg seem difficult to justify. I'd suggest that you withdraw these nominations and take greater care in the future. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

i'll go comment. It seems like people at the last nomination were misinformed. Even if an image is PD in its home country, it is not necessarily PD in the US. Presumably all the archives are commenting on are the copyright status of the image in Australia - not the copyright status of the image in the US. I'll comment again shortly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expand language

Hello there. Since you've made a major contribution towards Wikipedia:Translation/Overhaul I'm inviting you to contribute to the current discussion about Template:Expand_language. Thanks for any comments that you may wish to make. Rubywine . talk 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad that VioletRiga decided to notify me about this nomination that apparently stemmed from our discussion above.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Apologies - I noted it on wp:translate and guessed that you would have it on your watchlist. I then had to disappear for a while and returned to inform the relevant people. Thanks to Rubywine for letting you know. violet/riga [talk] 15:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Hey Jen :) Do you know how to remove watermarks? [File:Shake it off33.jpg This] photo I uploaded has black logo on the corner, without cropping (or else nevermind) can you remove it? Also, please don't reduce it or crop, I'm going to do that after. A million Thanks :-D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops sorry, missed that among all the drama. It's not really possible to "remove" the watermark easily, because doing so would involve redrawing a portion of Mariah's foot from scratch. I mean, I could do that, but I'm not sure it would be that accurate/encyclopedic. It might be better to cover it with a neutral-colored box. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem Jen! I figured lol. Okay, so how about this. Can you just color that mark with a light gray color matching the shoe? So it isn't as noticeable? I don't mean to ask much, but maybe half the box grey, and half black. The great wiill be by the foot and shoe, and the blakc half of the box by the chairs. Do you think that's okay? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

French system for translation requests

Hello Jen. I was only admiring the visual design of the French template - sorry to bring back bad memories! You offered to elaborate on why their system for translation requests is a freaking mess. I'm curious to hear more about this. Rubywine . talk 23:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

here is the disaster those French-style templates spawned. We used to have the French system until I converted all the requests to the new system. Every translation request got its own subpage. Sometimes banners went on the talk pages of articles, but often they didn't, because the process of requesting a translation was really complicated. No new editor could have possibly requested a translation, because the process was this multi-step thing of creating subpages and filling in templates and putting banners on talk pages. The template also has these built-in progress-tracking bars, which were never updated. It also assumes that every article will have a translator and then a copyeditor, which of course never happened. And since most of the translations weren't posted in prominent places (sometimes article talk page, sometimes not even that) they did not get done, and then the English-language articles would surpass the foreign-language articles, but the tags (if they were on talk pages) would never be removed, and the translation request on the dedicated subpage would never be cancelled. So essentially we had all these worthless to-do pages where the articles, a couple years down the line, didn't even need to be translated any more. This is part of the reason I think the templates should go on the article pages at least some of the time - so they get taken off when they're not useful anymore! If they're hidden away, we end up with more useless requests.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh lovely. A complex system that added layers of worthless documentation and made all the work pile up and go nowhere. Very well done for getting rid of that! It must have been an enormous job. And yes, I agree that the templates belong on the article pages. It seems pointless (and elitist) to place them where most users won't see them. Rubywine . talk 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up

regarding File:Franciscan-Hotel.jpg. I tracked it down and left an opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

and thanks, Jen, for your next move too. Putting up a free picture. Carptrash (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
and "yes" please dump the other one. Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the race in on to see who can make a major move at

McDonalds and strip malls and that sort of thing. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk
) 17:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate...

Can you explain why you returned this trolling question to

WT:RD where I started a thread to discuss the matter? --Jayron32
18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

oh, I think that was an edit conflict. I didn't know it had been removed, or that I was restoring it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's all good, don't sweat it. That kind of thing happens to me all the time. You're cool. Thanks for cleaning up! --Jayron32 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Infobox Qconnect operator

I think you wrongly tagged the

Template:Infobox bus transit would be the correct template to use for a bus company. Secondarywaltz (talk
) 17:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quirk

[7] Yay! Thanks!

Gods, yeah; let's remember it's supposed to be *enjoyable* - I think mostly that is forgotten!  Chzz  ►  22:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

wow, that was fast!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

TfD:Template:The Marcoses

Please come and have a look at TfD:Template:The Marcoses. I have just discovered something which I find extremely disturbing, and I would really appreciate some independent input. As things currently stand, I am intending to lodge a complaint about the actions of the editor who proposed this template for deletion, and a request that his history of article and template deletion is independently reviewed. Please tell me what you think. Rubywine . talk 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

19th century US senator cheating on his wife

Even though other users disagreed with you, I would at the very least like to thank you for your answer to my question. Whether or not this was the actual senator Bjørnson was referring to, we might not know, but it is at least a good alternative! :-) 23:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs)

FAOL anew

Given the previous discussions about

User:Violetriga/FAOL. violet/riga [talk]
15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete FfD

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Hello, Calliopejen1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 23#File:DSC02188.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

meta-issues

Howdy!
(Background: You deleted File:Adelaide railway station 1986.jpg - F9: Unambiguous copyright violation)
The problem with admins deleting stuff is that it deletes everything - it means we poor plebian non-admins no longer have access to the history, or to anything else, so we've no idea what went on.
Because I can no longer look, I can no longer be sure, but the caption on one use of the picture said "

Adelaide Railway Station platforms 1986, during construction of the Riverside Building and prior to construction of the Adelaide Convention Centre
above the platforms", so it would seem that it might have been a good candidate to be "Fair use of a historic event".
I've little doubt (but no ability to check) that the photo may well have been an "F9: Unambiguous copyright violation" with the license that was most probably stated.
But that's not really the point. The point is, if I had been warned before the deletion, I might have been able to address any problems. However, once the file has been deleted, well, I can't do anything useful - I can only complain (and that's not very useful, is it.)

So: What do you think about my above comments? Is there a general solution to the general problems I raise? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Given a complaint from the copyright holder--see below--(and the non-transformative use of the photo in our article) it is doubtful that this is fair use and/or meets the
WP:NFCC. If images are deleted, non-admins can always ask for undeletion, either informally or at a deletion review. Theoretically people nominating photos for deletion are supposed to put a deletion notification in the image's caption, but I'm not sure whether this happened in this case. And as far as F9 speedy-deletions go, those are relatively uncommon and having discussion beforehand would unnecessarily prolong deletion of bad content that exposes Wikipedia to liability. I think in that case it's better to deal with undeletion after-the-fact. Calliopejen1 (talk
) 06:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive answers here and below.
(Please note that here, I'm trying to keep away from the distractions of this specific photo, and focus on the meta-issues.)
You say: "Theoretically people nominating photos for deletion are supposed to put a deletion notification in the image's caption". So in that case, (if I'd had the picture on my watchlist), I would have seen something on my watchlist. Well, I don't see how any system could do much better than that. Do you?
(As you say, this picture has not been "a typical case". First, I don't think anything appeared on my watchlist. Second, this particular situation had an air of expediency about it that would not normally be the case. So, I would agree that this picture has not been a fair/"normal" test of the system.)
OK. I'm happy with the meta-issue situation. Thanks for your time and help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Adelaide railway station 1986.jpg

Can you reproduce what was "said" on the photo's page about the photo's source and license, etc., so I can consider if it's worth mounting a case for undeleting the file and putting a better license on it? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The only information on the photo's page was a tag saying {{PD-self}}. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_24#File:Adelaide_railway_station_1986.jpg gives the background for why I deleted it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't mis-understand me - I had little doubt that deletion would have been justified. Now that I've seen the information you've supplied, I have no doubt.
Also to clarify: I have NO doubt that the person who uploaded it cut FAR too many corners!
But the point remains: The caption on one use of the picture said "
Adelaide Railway Station platforms 1986, during construction of the Riverside Building and prior to construction of the Adelaide Convention Centre
above the platforms", so it would seem that it might have been a good candidate to be "Fair use of a historic event".
You've replied: "Given a complaint from the copyright holder--see below--(and the non-transformative use of the photo in our article) it is doubtful that this is fair use and/or meets the
WP:NFCC
."
I get the broad thrust, but I don't follow some of the details:
  • "the non-transformative use of the photo in our article" - I'm afraid I don't know what that means.

I've had a bit of help from a colleague. It seems the answer is: the NC in "CC BY-NC-SA" is the show stopper.

What a shame! Oh well. "C'est la vie" I guess. Thanks for your time and help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello Calliopejen1! I hope you accept this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:European cup Final Ticket.jpg listed for deletion

Disagree:

The ticket was issued for a European cup by a completion organization which no longer exists replaced by the champion’s league. This ticket stub, which I bought an used for this match has no copyright attribution on it and so I think there are no copyright issues here. Before you jump to conclusion about deleting this file I suggest that you come up with concrete evidence that the ticket stubb is copyrighted.Stavros1 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:File2280.jpg

File:File2280.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stavros1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree:

I am getting really fed up with you!. THIS FILE WAS DRAWN BY ME!. I am a CAD draftsman and Beeston Regis priory is located within the parish were I live. I took the time to drawn this accurate plan of the now ruined priory using information from my local library and English heritage. There are no copyright issues as I created this file. Please produce your evidence that this was orphaned. I have the original CAD file on my computer so I think you are making assumption that you will not be able to prove. Stavros1 (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Range_Rover.jpg

What an earth are you on about? this file has nothing to do with me! Please refrain from posting stupid comments about removing files which are nothing to do with me, does make you look rather silly Pandaplodder (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Block

This blockable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect he'll be back. If he does it again a permanent block on the ip may be neccesary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancuabe District. Click the external link. There are detailed PDFs on every district of Mozambique in Portuguese. Most are short stubs still... Information about the districts was non existant a few years ago remember? Also Cantons and communes of Gabon, we now have population data!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeha I think so. Masses of information. First of all though the external links the them need to be added. I've done Cabo Delgado.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

I request that this edit, made by the anon you have just blocked, be deleted from the article's history. It is disruptive and very insulting. Shahid • Talk2me 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Seems to satisfy the criteria. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expand German

Hello Calliopejen, since you've protected Template:Expand German so that it's only editable by administrators, please add the parameter "bio = Biography" to it. I get the impression that "bio = Biography" currently appears only on the French template so if you happen to have the time, I'd suggest it would be a good idea to add it to templates for other languages as well. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 08:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Calliopejen1. You have new messages at Rubywine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rubywine . talk 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Image Deletion Status

Hello again! This and this have yet to be resolved after a considerable length of time, and will probably not go away on their own. What is your current position on these nominations for deletion that you proposed? Inquiring minds want to know, and we want to put this issue to rest. Please respond at your earliest convenience. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My current position is that they should be deleted - I'm not going to withdraw, if that's what you're looking for... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(Sigh) Of course that is what I was looking for. So be it - but I should tell you this appears to be a losing battle. 100% free PD images determined to be taken by state/federeal employees should not be confused with CC-by-SA licenses that are 100% legitimately issued by the FBI and the State of Florida. If the FBI pic needs a license change from PD to CC-by-SA, I could understand. But to second-guess these significant entities when all evidence points to their legitimacy in issuing CC-by-SA licenses not only to us but to anyone seems a futile effort. Good luck, see you on the Commons (I hope) and Cheers :> Doc talk 09:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh? First of all, CC-BY-SA is a specific legal document and has nothing with either of these photos. Neither government agency has purported to issue these under CC-BY-SA. And that license can only be granted by the copyright holder. You have to be the copyright holder before you can grant a creative commons license. Find an explicit statement from an appropriate authority that the Florida government owns the copyrights to the images in its archives--and forward it to OTRS--and I will shut up. Or find evidence that the FBI took the photo of Bundy (and therefore it is PD as a work of the federal government). That's really pretty minimal. There is no sign that the defenders of the images have gone to any effort to verify their copyright status. And the burden is on the person trying to show that an image is free. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No one has ever said the Florida images were free/PD. Just that Florida's claim to license them to anyone supercedes our interpretation. As I pointed out, author Kevin M. Sullivan actually used one of the images for his book The Bundy Murders (which is sold for profit), and all he had to do was credit the Florida archives. Nothing else. For other images not in the archives he had to pay AP and other agencies for their use. Why would the "true" copyright holder allow Florida to do this? It makes no sense that they would unless it was legitimate. Same for the FBI. Doc talk 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

DB report

Hi Calliopejen1. Hope you're well. As a regular contributor to

WP:FFD, you may be interested in this bot generated report; it could use a few more eyes. Best, FASTILY (TALK)
01:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Nice job!

Internet-related article improvement award
Nice job with your huge expansion of Internet in Bahrain, an article I created ages ago. It looks really good now! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 01:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Hi. Thanks for your earlier feedback on the

Wong Kim Ark article. I've done a lot of work on the article in the past few days, and I would be grateful if you could take another look at it now and let people know whether your objections to its becoming a Featured Article have (or have not) been satisfactorily addressed. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs
) 04:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:L'Officiel.jpg

A tag has been placed on

section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria
. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the
non-free fair use in
|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Burmese lists

Hi. i was wondering if you could use the excel sheet by province of http://themimu.info/Pcodes/index.php to create a full list of settlements in Burma. It has all of the sub district info and about 50,000 out of 68,000 have coordinates which could go in a table? Can you do this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Like this I guess. Of course though at it would be likely you'd create pages by district, the state and district columns might be removed..

Location Village Tract Sub-Township Township District Region/State Coordinates
(links to map & photo sources) 		Notes
Foo Hi Thaik Thaik Pego Hpathiwe Shan 13°38′02″S 72°52′53″W / 13.63389°S 72.88139°W / -13.63389; -72.88139 (Abancay)
Foo Pu Thaik Thaik Pego Hpathiwe Shan 13°38′02″S 72°52′53″W / 13.63389°S 72.88139°W / -13.63389; -72.88139 (Abancay)

Ignore the Burmese.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/S710

Hi, Jen. :) Not sure if you noticed, but MER-C discovered that User:S710 continued on Wikipedia as User:S711, which complicates that particular CCI. I'm not sure if his persisted in copyright problems after he took up his new account, although certainly it's worth looking into. He does acknowledge that he was careless in his early days but has been a dedicated contributor up to the present time and believes that he has been more careful recently. He's hoping that we will continue to evaluate case by case, under the circumstances. You can see his note to me here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

clean up

Hi, Calliopejen1. I will most certainly make an effort at cleaning up all copy right violations I made (some years ago) as S710. I will follow the article list of the CCI board. Can you please tell me what the meaning is of the numbers (indicated after the article's title), or are they just arbitrary?S711 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paulus.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Far, far too big

I suggest that

list of villages in Hinthada District needs to be split into about six separate pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs
) 14:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (I had actually already created List of villages in Hinthada Township as a split from that page - just need to do the other townships now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


190.161.134.66

Would you perhaps take a moment and remind this user not to make comments about other contributors? He is obviously not listening to me, nor is he heeding the advice he was given by another admin. Another reminder might be necessary. Thanks! ---

TheFortyFive
20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and blocked him for a bit. Wikipedia does not need to waste time dealing with editors who can't act like grown-ups. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Just as well, as this edit summary indicates he is not taking a hint. Thanks! ---
TheFortyFive
 20:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:John8707.jpg

Hi. I see you placed a tag on this file,

File:John8707.jpg, saying that a source is needed. It is a picture of the person who uploaded it, who has released it into the public domain. Is it your concern that he is not the actual copyright holder? From an abstract point of view, I can see the issue - unless he made a self-portrait or paid someone to take the picture then the copyright would be held by the photographer, not the subject. But the common practice on Wikipedia seems to be to assume that people hold the copyright to snapshots taken of themselves and in their possession, regardless of who took the picture. Are you opposed to that routine accomodation?   Will Beback  talk
  23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that it was supposedly a self-portrait. My only concern now would be getting OTRS verification that he's who he says he is, since it looks like a publicity photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
We (and by 'we' I mean several editors including Jimmy Wales and myself) have had extensive communications with the editor, on and off-wiki. I can vouch for his identity. Thanks for addressing my concern promptly, and thanks for working to improve the project.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
In recognition of your careful and diligent work on behalf of the project for more than four years, it's my honor to award you this Barnstar of Diligence.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark possible future FAC

Hi. Last month, you offered some input on the Featured Article candidacy of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The article was not promoted at that time, but I'm continuing to work on it and am hoping to renominate it sometime in the near future.

You were concerned at the time that the material in the article discussing the impact of the case was woefully lacking in a foundation built on secondary sources (especially on early sources dealing with contemporary reactions to the decision). I accepted this criticism and put a lot of work into finding more sources — including sources from around the time of the case — and I believe the current text is significantly better than it was — but in the absence of any followup comments from you, I can't be sure if I really addressed your concerns.

I would be extremely grateful if you would be willing to take another look at the "Subsequent developments" section of the article and let me know what you think of it now. I know I asked for your feedback a few weeks ago (while the FAC was still in play), but for whatever reason you never responded. I hope you'll say something now — so that I can know whether I handled the issues, still have a way to go, or simply didn't get the point — but if it turns out that you are simply not willing to spend any more time on this article (either now or at a possible future FAC), let me know and I won't pester you further. Richwales (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I didn't have time to give it much more serious thought - though I didn't think it would have been possible to do all the necessary research from scratch during the FAC. I can give it a look-over, but I can't really give much more advice because now that I am working and not in law school, I only have very expensive Westlaw/Lexis access, and I can't really say if it's a comprehensive treatment of the available sources without doing searches in those databases... Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have LEXIS/NEXIS access, but when I attempted to search for older Wong Kim Ark material during the FAC, I was unable to get LEXIS/NEXIS to give me anything older than 1973 (even when I specified "all available dates" in the search). I also have ProQuest access, and I had better luck there — several law review articles and newspaper editorials from around the time of the decision, as well as information about a 1942 case involving Japanese-Americans in which one of the lawyers argued (unsuccessfully) that Wong Kim Ark was bad law and that the Supreme Court should be given an opportunity to overrule it. As for one other question you had raised — why Wong Kim Ark's case jumped from district court directly to the Supreme Court, and via appeal rather than certiorari — someone else found that the law in force at the time (the Judiciary Act of 1891, a.k.a. the Evarts Act) allowed direct SCOTUS appeal in cases involving the construction or application of the Constitution, or the constitutionality of an act of Congress. If you can offer me any more feedback, I'd greatly appreciate it. I do plan to nominate this article again (after a content dispute I'm having with another editor has been settled), and if you see any problems, I'd prefer if possible to take care of them now rather than during a second FAC. Thanks again. Richwales (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fashion

I started Silvia Tcherassi. Do you think Tuti Barrera meets notability requirements? There are sources like this and a few hits in google books but I couldn't find an entry in the fahsion model directory. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Image source thingy

You listed an image MediaWiki says I uploaded File:Pagosa Springs Panoramic.gif - just to let you know, in case you come across the same issue again (you probably will) - the original image uploaded was corrupted with a small number of others when something went a little awry with the WMF servers. This resulted in a few administrators trying to recover images from the WP dumps, from mirrors, caches etc, and if I remember correctly, from the upload.wikimedia.org server with help from Brion, Tim et al. There's a dozen or so similar images in my Uploads section (should be on the first page), and what we uploaded are the original images, as uploaded, but they may appear at different resolutions owing to the way they were recovered and re-uploaded. I hope that's clear, if not, get back to me. Nick (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

CCI update

CCI complete
CCI
.

Fabulous feeling to close another. :) Your work there is always appreciated.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of
List of villages in Hinthada District
for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

List of villages in Hinthada District is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted
.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Hinthada District until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --

Talk to me
17:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you place your lists in Category:Lists of villages by township of the Ayeyarwady Region? Cheers. Some things, can you greatly reduce the size of the notes section, and widen the coordinate and other columns? Just unlikely they will be filled in the near future. Also I think it might be better if you wikilink the villages to start off with and put them in alpha order by default if this is possible? This way they can be dabbed in the future.. By the end of this I would also like a List of village tracts of Burma..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Purrfect, if you could also format the ones you started in the same way this would be great. Yeah Template:Hsi Hseng Township is at TFD too. Not complaining as its ignited my interest in Burma again and doesn't stand a chance of being deleted..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you could list all your lists under List of populated places in Burma this would be great.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Only thing is that a lot of the transliterationns differ from those on google and geonames. Like Da Yei Pauk =Dayebauk. The positive thing though is that the settlement do all exist of course! But it will require quite a lot of concentration to match em up. View Dayebauk here on google earth. Looks great.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grrr wikipedia is full of irritating people today. Can you AFD List of cities, towns and villages in Burma: A, List of cities, towns and villages in Burma: B and List of cities, towns and villages in Burma: Y and Template:Lists of Burma locations. These lists are now alienated anyway as List of cities, towns and villages has been redirected to list of populated places and your lists. But my db-author tags were removed senselessly.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you given up on the lists?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm yet to see you ever complete a task Jen! You gave up on the Chile dictionary too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

CCI update

CCI complete
CCI
.

Thank you very much. :D--Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm quite impressed with your diligent work identifying images, preventing unnecessary deletions. Thank you so much! You have earned this barn star. – Quadell (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind request of improuvement and translation for Ludmilla Radchenko Thanks in advance from the heart

Good morning to you,


I write you first to greet you and to wish you a good day, it thrives, generous and full of successes. In addition to this, you point out this article about a Russian model living in Italy, but which is also active in the United States and Anglophone countries. It's called Ludmilla Radchenko, and I got to know during his fashion show in my native land. Is a very sweet girl, sweet and friendly, typical of Russian. I'm asking you because I saw that you are a member of the fashion project, and who better than you can bring back on track, I trust you fully. cure them in detail. said thank you in advance that my whole heart, and if you need it for the Italian or the Sicilian, I am at your disposal. Thanks for everything, and good start to the day. cordially. Luigi--

talk
) 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kootical pic

Hi - I have no objection to Kootical.jpg being deleted. It is a poor graphic and I have no recollection of uploading it. I must have been less than attentive - thanks for bringing it to my attention. MarkDask 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand other language

Template:Expand other language has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Moving
Burma to Myanmar
- ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move

Burma to Myanmar
. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/FfD

Hi Calliopejen1. As you probably know, when nominating files for deletion at

WP:FFD using twinkle, it occasionally fails to list the file. Because of this bug, I have set up a program to generate a list of files nominated for deletion without an associated nomination. A few of the files you nominated for deletion came up in the report, so I thought you might be interested in this list. Regards, FASTILY (TALK)
21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:MBD mordechai ben david mbd (47).JPG

Hi there. You tagged File:MBD mordechai ben david mbd (47).JPG for deletion at PUF, but it seems you forgot to actually list the file. Just thought I'd point this out to you. Regards. — ξxplicit 22:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Careful there

Almost everything you've listed in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 24 was already listed on the 20th. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The listings seemed to have gotten deleted in a mistaken edit, but I didn't want to restore them in case some had been renominated elsewhere. So I was just renominating them individually. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Calliopejen1/Archive 9! The

WMF
is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by

Wiki Media Foundation
at 12:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC).


Images "X ... parenthesis... .svg"

Hi - I have no objection to either of these images being deleted. I had trouble making changes and so I uploaded what I needed under other names. Congratulations for your services to Wikipedia. RMPK (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

File:Yagura castle.png deletion

Thanks for notifying me about this file. I updated its 'talk' page, but yes please go ahead and rmove the file. It is redundant. --Ph0kin (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a very good addition you made to the essay about image arguments to avoid. Thanks! By the way, I think you do excellent work in that area. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm....

In this edit you introduced a ton of material that appears to be directly copied from this book. As you say you are a Harvard law graduate and the editors of the book are associated with Harvard Law, I am thinking that perhaps this is not a straightforward case of plagiarism / copyright violation, but that perhaps you have permission? (I know John Palfrey, and of coursee he's a friend of Wikipedia, so that wouldn't shock me.) If not, I'm afraid we need to delete this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That content is Creative Commons-licensed, as you can see in the note giving credit at the bottom of the article and at the source link (see footer). It looks like they must have republished the content in a book, but that doesn't change the fact that they granted a Creative Commons license... I'm not really sure why they didn't CC license the book also, considering that the content (or some version of some part of it) is already free, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to make money off of your content in one venue, even if you've released it freely in another. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Great, super. Sorry to have bothered you. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:P7060098.JPG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:P7060098.JPG. Since you had some involvement with the File:P7060098.JPG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: File:P1040167.JPG listed for deletion

It can be deleted. It is no longer used on the Route 32 page anyways. Thank you. Mlaurenti (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: File:W4sdatabase-example.jpg

As far as I can see the file where is was uploaded is the only place where it's origin is recorded. As it is the source for File:W4sdatabase-example.png (with which is was replaced on WP) I wonder if the licence requirement for the use of the derivative means the image itself has to be kept? Otherwise the risk is that someone else will tidy up the derivative at some point, find a part of the copyright history is missing and delete it? I am, incidentally, not remotely fussed about deleting the image aside this point. --BozMo talk 06:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:James Hendin.jpg listed for deletion

Regarding the picture of me that was loaded onto Wikipedia ... I never loaded that file myself. Someone who knew my password loaded it. It was done without my authorization. They took it from my Facebook page. Jhendin (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Request for help in adding template to IEP user pages

Hi Jen, I saw that you added the {{Template:User WikiProject India Education Program}} template to the user pages of many IEP students. We finally have a more complete list of all (well, most of ;-) the participants in the program. Since you seem to have prepared a script to add the template to the user pages, perhaps you'd like to look into this list as well, if you find the time? Please have a look here: Wikipedia talk:India Education Program#Students and articles. I think, having these students grouped in a category would be of quite some help in the ongoing process to spot and clean up all those copyvios, etc. Thanks and greetings, Matthias. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha... no, no script. I just did a search for ".mech" in usernames and was adding them manually. (There are a couple more common suffixes that might be worth looking into, in case the list is incomplete.) If I have more time, I may add more of them, but if others want to pitch in it could get done faster. Adding tags to that list could also be done using AWB if someone makes a page with just a linked list of users, and then loads the links from that page into AWB. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

PNG rivers

Hey. I was wondering if you could use your skills to extract a List of rivers of Papua New Guinea for me from geonames. Just I created Warangoi River and looking at the satellite there's tons of rivers in New Britain alone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the data I'm after, its the names of the rivers, which yes I think would be legit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Email contact

Hello, Voceditenore, I am an editor of the Wikipedia Signpost writing a story on the India Education Program, and was advised that you might have some insight to share on the situation. I've already interviewed the consultant for the program, and was going to email you for a response, but you email is disabled. Please get in touch if you are interested in participating. The story needs to be finished by 21:00 UTC today. Thanks, Skomorokh 13:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Iranian images

Hi, Can you bot upload User:Carlossuarez46/photos from Persian wiki? Loads of free valuable images of smaller towns.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, plus it would be a lot of working uploading them all!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you use google chrome and have the pages translated you'll get the gist of the Farsi, also the GNU and Copyright with a slash through it logos are readable without translation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i know, but sometimes people put things like "my friend took it" or other vague comments indicating that there is a problematic licensing situation. Normally I'll even click through a user's other photo uploads before transferring an image to the commons, to check for copyright red flags. All this requires better than Google translate IMO, which generally mangles translations from Farsi. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File namespace noticeboard idea

Hi there. As a file worker, I'd like your input on the idea of a noticeboard for file workers. The prototype is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#File Namespace Noticeboard.

Please comment at the VPIL thread, or edit the page linked to there directly, as I can't keep track of this conversation if everyone I invite to comment on the matter responds on their own talk pages.

Wha?
07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hilya