User talk:MECU/Archive/Archive-Jan2007

Re: Matt Smith (musician) deletion

Well, I told you why it is noteable, the article itself stated why he IS noteable. All you told me is that you don't think it is without giving a reason. I told you they played at ProgPower, which is generally as high as you can get in the USA playing this type of music. Oh and on a poll of the top Christian metal albums of all time it placed in the Top 10 link here. So if Christian metal is a noteable article I'd think that a fairly new group which is that highly thought of by fans of the genre should have an article and the musician who recorded the entire debut by himself should qualify for having a page aso. If it isn't noteable then pretty much any metal band or musician in those genres is not noteable since they will never achieve huge commercial success. Is that what wikipedia is about? Noteable = Commercial success? Then you may as well put up half the bands on wiki up for deletion. --E tac 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack*

subst:smile3

}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

My ERA) I understand that I am not all that active; that is because I only have a few days a week to really edit due to 1) my dad's internet sucking and 2)school.
B) I also know I have few talk edits; but as mostly a WikiGnome, I have little to talk about.
C) What's with the focus on FAs and GAs in RfAs?
Thanks. --teh tennisman 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added bit on my talk page. I feel like I really can make it if I can get better internet, so hopefully I can make more edits and help make wikipedia a better place. If I decide to run for RfA, I'll let you know; it probably will not be until sometime next year when I have made more edits and become a FA or GA writer. Thanks again, teh tennisman 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

Image:Chuck Amato-NC State.jpg listed for deletion

Hey ... I didn't notice that you had uploaded it until I hit the button ... honestly, replaceability and all that stuff aside, this photo just looks bad and I strongly suggest that having no photo there is better than this one. BigDT 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst:smile3

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image:DominicJanes.jpg

OK, I'm

DrillSergeant...§ 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't biteSeveral points to make:

1. By welcoming someone, you are assuming good faith regardless of their first few edits
2. Because you mention {{
   db-attack
   }}, I assume you do not think the image is himself
3. Perhaps the editor is an excited youth, he is making his mark, but by welcoming him the community may be able to rein in any distructive behaviour and channel it into productivity; finding his first edit deleted will not help bring him around

I agree that the image likely has no use, but it is presumiably free content and perhaps the user would like it on his user page. My point is, 8 hours is a very short time and we have processes to handle disruptive editors should it turn out that this is all the user is interested in. I think the phrase, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is apt. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Templates

I just wanted to respond with a quick note. This isn't to take away from any response Mecu has but since you're new I wanted to fill you in. The WikiProject has a standard format for game schedules. You can view it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format#Schedule.--NMajdan•talk 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio vs OR

Editor review

RE: Editor Review

Image:Joantipon.jpghow do i delete the image? i will replace it as soon as i get a free alternative. thanks for the note. --RebSkii 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

A page just for you :)Your idea has been enacted upon - and I will think in the next few weeks will really take off. Cheers see and add info here [[

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters]] Lethaniol 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[reply]

Dennis EricksonI am assuming that this edit to Dennis Erickson was an accident? You removed a lot more than just the image and the caption. I reverted it (but left off the image and caption as you originally intended) VegaDark 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mecu/monobook.js

Singil Station

Signpost updated for December 26th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[reply]

Image:Paul Johnson football coach.jpgThanks for uploading

first fair use criterion

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

crztalk 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[reply]

Adoption

I don't quite understand how that archive thing works, though I think I'd prefer an automated system. Yes, I do want to get involved more in Wikipedia, but I'm not sure exactly what I could do. I mean, I've made various spelling revision, reverted vandalism, translated from x language to english, but none of this seems to have a HUGE effect on a page. Thanks for the help -Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me||what i've done||e|} 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, Thanks so much!!! That really helped a lot, I didn't realize there were SO many things on here. I found the pages needing translation and proofreading of translations. I can't thank you enough! :D --Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me||what i've done||e|} 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About JJBorrelli.jpg

Thanks..for Your critics. Although You could've freely been more harsh. :) The reason why I get involved in controversial topics (from time to time) is because I want to solve them; and just hate injustice when I see it. And in such cases I always assert a very strong position, strictly abide & quote Wikipedia's policy like a Knight (and although I believe that such radicalism is essentially wrong, I do it anyway). It's because of that that I've been called a

Ustasha

, etc... For example, the sources for Rudjer Boskovic's father being Croat are overwhelming compared to the Serbian claim, which lies more in POVish nationalist irridenta - and that is combined with other nationalisms there (Italian). I'm not negating the existence Croatian nationalist claims (POV), but everything I stand for over there abides Wikipedia's NOR and CITE policies. A good "other side" to that is me fighting a Croat [[internet troll troll]] that keeps returning to menace some of the articles I write and drops a death threat now & there... so I tend to draw the middle. The reason for such a large number of talk page edits is because I like to discuss articles with other editors, to the full ends of every single word the articles have! Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, actually, I was commenting that You should've freely been more harsh. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Buffaloeshelmethut.com click on the image of 1981 and 82-84 Smith03 19:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:13 5.jpg

Dick DeBartoloRationale added. Also see Image talk:140 ddb-aen.gif. Pepso 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Recent IfD nominations template to the image page.

1. Notifiy the uploader
2. Tag any pages that the image is used on if it is not an orphan
3. Add to the IfD page.

Several nominations you have done today have not completed step two; I have now done that for you and added a comment on the IfD section. The nomination tool is a very helpful bit of programming, but please note that it will not replace knowing, understanding and applying the policy/guidelines around images. If there are any questions, please let me know.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to, for example,

Martin 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Help with no rationale images

Thanx

Image ReplacabilityThis image is about a living author.

I found the image on the WEB where it's used to promote the book, I believe.

The image could probably be replaced by going to Israel (I'm in the USA) with a camera.

So what should be dome about it's use, Fair use, or otherwise?

The image in question is Image:906365 -Hadassa Ben-Itto-.jpg.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

---

I hear you? And I really do not needed that particular image. Just an image of her, any!

So can't we keep it until such time as some finds another?

Also, I believe the holder of the image is the promoter of her book, the publisher.

So who's going to ask for permission of use in Wiki? And how do you do it?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

ThanksThank you for formatting the

T|C) 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[reply]

Amiri_Baraka.jpg flagged for possible copyright violationi don't understand why you flagged this image for "possible copyright violation." the author, whose name is provided only as "opacity," has listed the image on flickr.com as released under the "creative commons" license; i provided attribution and linked to the image's source. i would appreciate any feedback, as i'm trying to improve my understanding of wikipedia's conventions, and spent a lot of time looking for a photo that did not appear to be subject to "copyright" laws... America jones 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrent Williams

Ouch! I'll go delete "my" image. -

crztalk 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Template

My fair use imagesAny fair use images I have uploaded that are not in use in an article you can go ahead and delete now. These are photos that I uploaded and later cropped or fixed in whatever way, and re-uploaded in the "fixed" version.

I dont think I have any fair use images on my user page that are not in use in an article.

Mrlopez2681 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mass tagging

As per your notices on my talk page, take note that all of the images you listed are double-tagged with fair-use and with the original license of ww2.pl. The reason for double-tagging was that some copyright enthusiasts (to name them mildly) have argued that the original license was not enough and that it was better to add another tag just in case. However, since then I received triple confirmation that the guys from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the owners of the sites) have no problem whatsoever with us using the pics from their site. In fact one of the guys to confirm that has become a deputy minister in the chancellery of the Polish Prime Minister, so I'd say his word is quite valid. If you have a problem with the fair-use tags, feel free to remove them and leave only the {{PolandGov}} tag, as it's perfectly ok. //Halibutt 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amiri_Baraka.jpgthanks for the feedback on the copyright status of this image America jones 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College football barnstar

		The College football Barnstar
		I, college football barnstar for your phenomenal work with college football articles this season. BigDT 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

College football team infoboxes

Replaceable fair use message

Re: All-High Stadium - The Natural

• Listen up: I am getting VERY TIRED of you wiki-busybodies trying to get OTHERS to do your work for you. Since YOU are the one that has a problem with it, and YOU claim it is easy to find a replacement, then it is up to YOU to look for one.
  Wahkeenah 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• And by the way, I have news for you... I looked ALL OVER THE INTERNET trying to find a photo instead of this one. NADA. And I am not about to drive 1,000 miles to take a personal photo. Your claim that it should be easy to find is NOT TRUE.
  Wahkeenah 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I could post the above complaint, except that the place the link sends me to is a blind alley. Don't try to hide behind wikipedia policy. No one forced you to mess with this. The problem is YOU.
  Wahkeenah 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I posted a comment about on the picture page, which I guess is what you want done. And don't go lecturing me about civility. YOU STARTED IT. One more thing: Never contact me again for any reason.
  Wahkeenah 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I figured out what set me off. You tagged the item and then put a message on my talk page. Why didn't you ask me first? Then we could have discussed the matter in a civilized way.
  Wahkeenah 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also, your argument is absurd. You have pretty well ruined my evening. Why don't you just delete it now and get it over with?
  Wahkeenah 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You and your superior attitude have wasted enough of my time already. I have removed the picture from the article and am no longer watching the picture page. You win.
  Wahkeenah 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hold the phone. The photo depicts the stadium as it looked in the movie. From what I can tell, the stadium does not actually look like that, it was mocked up in post-production for the movie. Therefore, it is NOT replaceable. It can only be found in the movie. The article discusses this. Take away your deletion posting, or I'll do it for you.
  Wahkeenah 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You're missing the point. The image in the film was mocked-up to vaguely resemble the Chicago ballparks. The real stadium bears no resemblance at all. I'm guessing you've never seen the film.
  Wahkeenah 04:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Fair use?Hi. You just added a fair use template in my user talk, however, you didn't add any image to the template so I don't know what you are talking about. Can you please link me to the image. I would be glad to check its fair use status.--enano ^(Talk) 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

College football team infoboxesThanks for your quick reply. Here is a sample of the infoboxes some team pages have on it:

MECU/Archive/Archive-Jan2007

If we can edit this to include helmets and not just a logo, I think it would really spruce things up. Most prominent programs already have infobox in their pages. The URL for the Helmet Project is http://nationalchamps.net/Helmet_Project/index.htm. The section of the site in regards to sharing can be found near the bottom under "What's in it for you."Football79 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use

You're Wrong About Margo Smith and I'm Right

Response on Margo Smith

Margo Smith Image

Template:Law enforcementHello,

I understand you are "adept at creating template code" and was wondering if you could do a favour for the

our template

.

You see, we have an 'article watch' system where articles which have vandalism, edit wars and so on are added. It can be found here. I was hoping that our project banner template could have a function where you type "article-watch=yes" into the {{Law enforcement}} to produce a small "more information" drop down bar exactly the same as the existing "peer review" one, which would state the following:

"This article is being [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/No vandalism, no conflict#Article Watch|watched]] due to vandalism, edit wars or poor wikiquette."

And where it would normally say PEER if it could say [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/No vandalism, no conflict|NVNC]]

What do you think? would you be able to create that for us? If it is even possible? If you are kind enough to accept and have any questions, you can leave a message on my talk page of course, many thanks and kind regards, SGGH 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's BRILLIANT! Cheers! While i dont think a catagory will be needed at the moment due to the low volume of articles being watching, we might as well have one in case demand picks up, perhaps "Law Enforcement Articles Under Article Watch"? Once again, REALLy brilliant work! Many thanks! SGGH 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For very quickly granting my request to help solve code problems with the Law Enforcement Wikiproject's banner template code. While he had no obligation to help me out, Mecu re-wrote it and saved it in record time, and it works perfectly! Many thanks SGGH 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No problem, sorry for copying in the wrong code for the barnstar I planned to use! SGGH 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image move to commons - Paris metroMecu,

Thanks a lot for moving those - someone had asked me to do it before the new year, and I just didn't have the time to get around to it. Fact is I was looking to upload the originals, but not that you've done it you've saved me the trouble of having to find them again. Thanks a million.

THEPROMENADER 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you before, there are not any fair use images on my user page that are not in use in an article (there are maybe only 3 or 4 photos that are fair use - I went through all of them earlier).

Now is there a rule that says that fair use images ARE NOT ALLOWED to be put up on a user page?

will you live it alone? Im going throgh them right now, its easier when I can see them - just give me 20 minutes.

My user page is now free of fair use images. --Mrlopez2681 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Helmet Project

Mr. SpeakerWhy do you want to delete that? \It's a nice drawing i made.

RocketMaster 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Uni of wales.jpg)

Image:Alison-whyte-tamsin-lewis-d.jpg

Image:Alison-whyte-tamsin-lewis-d.jpgI can't find a fair use image and she seems to have semi-retired so do not expect any new images --JuntungWu 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

awww...my adoption

Mecu - i have comprised a stub about 'legal secretary.' should i put it on my user page while i continue edits, or officially list it for others to revise? any help would be appreciated. The undertow 08:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you say "beer+Wikipedia?" no wonder you are my mentor :p The undertow 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me with

car salesman? this article is so poorly written that i would actually rather see it deleted. i cannot assert that i can recreate a better article, but the format alone is deplorable. any ideas? The undertow 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Image:Deeping map.PNG

Mass tagging is starting to bother me

It's not my intention to overload IFD. I do try to use alternate methods when they apply, but going through orphaned images, most are classified GDFL but have no encyclopedic value. I don't know what else to do. I could limit myself to only looking at so many pictures per day, but that doesn't seem appropriate. I did think that it might be a good idea for a new CSD category, that orphaned images could be tagged as orphan, the uploader notified and after 90 (or 180, or...?) days, if it's still orphaned, then it's deleted. It would remove it the process from IFD on most OR images. And anyone could look at any of the categories of tagged OR images such that they could de-orphan it. The problem is that the 90 (or whatever) days the orphaned images are there would take a long delay and many would likely complain about the number of days or that we still might delete images that are useful, despite them having lots of time to save them. Anyways, if you have any other input or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. --MECU≈talk 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: You can move them to commons. A use for them can be found on a variety of projects such as wikinews or wikibooks among others. We are looking for more images on commons after all. --Cat out 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah and btw there are tools to help you move images to commons. --Cat out 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What tools are available? My initial thoughts would be that only images that have value should be used in an article and therefore moved to Wikipedia. I guess there's another line between useful and just completely userful. Anyways, can you give me a link to the tools? Hopefully, they can autotag or something. Thanks.--MECU≈talk 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tools I use is http://hdbot.velirat.de/ it is a commons uploader. It lets you copy an image to commons from wikipedia and tags the English copy for being a duplicate and even creates a button so you can delete the en copy. You can use all images on commons from en.wiki. This tool requires approval of the bot owner which you can catch on IRC.

I am aware that there are also some python bots doing the task as well although I never used them so I cant really comment on them.

Somewhat usefull images are ok on commons. Granted commons is not a webhost so the images being moved should have a potential value (someones pet dog may have an encyclopedic value (for say wikispecies) or a space shuttles debris (for say a wikinews article)) while not having a value for wikipedia. I haven't checked every image you are working on but I think you know what I mean so I wont bore you off with it. :)

--Cat out 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some other comment

Aye no probs nothing personal but I was hoping to use it on River Yarrow articles, uploaded the pic shortly after taking the photo. WP should be grateful for uploaded free use photos, whether they are linked or not :) --PopUpPirate 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be more proactive if you checked peeps carefully uploaded pics, and submitted them to commons if it bothers you so :) --PopUpPirate 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about Image:0001v.jpg

Orphaned Finder imagesHi, Mecu. I noted the messages you left me on my talk page, and attempted to rectify the problem. I added fair use rationales to the photos and added them to the

Macintosh Finder

page: and plan on adding them to other pages where they belong. Please tell me if theres still anything I need to do so that these images wont qualify for deletion: as I feel that they are very good quality images: and shouldnt be taken off because of a technicality or oversite. :)

Thanks, --Alegoo92 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mac80

its from a pdf file from the city of richmond, its government image, fair use, low res, just a crop

and please dont leave messages at the bottom of my talk page below the section that specifically says, dont leave messages here!qrc2006/email 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Al stewart orange album 1972.jpg)

• Hi MECU, thanks for the info'. It seems that the image (orignally included in Al Stewart ) has been replaced by another "fair use" item Image:AlStewart.jpg.

The new item is a more recent photo', but not an album cover, so I'm not sure how this fits in with current WIKI"fair use" policy. If the new one's ok from the legal aspect, I believe it's better than the one I uploaded and would have no objections to the latter being deleted. Regards, Wikityke 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC ident images

You do have my word though I accept what you are saying.

Wikiwoohoo 18:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

RPG imageImage:RPGs.jpg

I guess you missed this:

11th Marine Expeditionary Unit Explosive Ordnance Disposal team members inventory rocket propelled grenade launchers that were stockpiled along with other weapons and ammunition in Najaf, Iraq, by Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, Sept. 3, 2004. DoD photo by Chief Warrant Officer Matthew D. Middleton, U.S. Marine Corps. (Released)

Photo by: CWO2 MATTHEW D. MIDDLETON, 11TH MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT Record ID No. (VIRIN): 040903-M-1947M-030

What part of that is not a source? (and BTW all US gov images are PD) Riddley 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it necessarily from an internet source? Riddley 19:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just FYI, generally Marines don't like to be called Navy.  :) Riddley 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DOD VIRIN number is right there (Visual Information Record Identification Numbers). Anybody can get a copy of the original image. Riddley 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCurrent.jpgMecu, The image in question was taken from Robert Newton's The Encyclopedia of Robberies, Heists, and Capers which, as it belongs to the

MadMax 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Go ahead

Image:RQ-9 Predator.jpg^talk 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please Delete My ImageHi, Mecu,

I am trying to delete an image I uploaded on WikiCommons (mainly because I forgot to rotate it first), but am sort of a Wikipedia novice. The image can be found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Viasacra.jpg

I saw your name on the

Images and media for deletion

page and was wondering if you could help me out.

Thanks, --MosheA 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Redoaknew.jpg

Then make it explicitly clear on the page so another user does not make the same mistake I did. Cbrown1023 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical national championship

Yes, I understand this, but I feel I am at least entitled to protection based on this policy. If I choose to continue using Wikipedia I will respect this policy, but it is only fair that I am not the only one required to follow it. 66.188.79.89 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Richtransvilg.jpg

i dont know the right tag, but im certain fair use applies. its a government agency not a private company, if we can use the coca cola logo we can use an image from city redevelopment plans owed by them for purposes of education not profit especially since there is no alternative available, and cmon Richmond is not gonna sue us for promoting their city.qrc2006/email 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i doubt its copyrighted, i dont know how to write a rationale, allthough i believe i allready did, i dont know how to fix it, i added the closest approximate tag on the list, what tag should i add, theres no general fair use one dude. lil help?qrc2006/email 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Beatrix, Cartin, and Pembroke 15:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Deleted Comments in the Chris Leak Page

Deletion of Image "Image:RA Montgomery CVL 22.jpg"Hi, you have mentioned: "Image:RA Montgomery CVL 22.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cvl-22.com/pics3.html. As a copyright violation, Image:RA Montgomery CVL 22.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria."

Please note, pictures taken aboard US Navy aircraft carriers during combat operations in WWII have the licensing "PD-USGov-Military-Navy" with the following description:

"This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain"

So your deletion was not correct, or has something changed with the label "PD-USGov-Military-Navy"?

Please explain me the copyright violation of this "PD-USGov-Military-Navy"-picture:

http://www.cvl-22.com/56.jpg

Andy Felix c 22:30, 7 January 2007

Hi Mecu, thanks for your explanation. I have removed the deleted picture from "Alex Vraciu".

Anyway i'm not completely sure, if the pic really had to be deleted, you have mentioned:

"Unfortunately you took the image from a site which states "All pictures used on this site are the copyrighted works of Wyatt Wolfe Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. 2005". As such, it's hard to believe that the image was the product of the US Federal Government. The deleting admin agreed with me and deleted the image."

Wyatt Wolfe is mentioning on his website:

"This site is owned and maintained by Wyatt Wolfe in honor to his father, Glenn E Wolfe Sr, who served on board the USS Independence CVL-22 during World War II. Credit is given to the respective owners of all photographs. The picture works are copyright Wyatt Wolfe 2005"

http://www.cvl-22.com/index.html

The label "PD-USGov-Military-Navy" states: "This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties."

If Glenn E Wolfe Sr "served on board the USS Independence", didn't he made the images "during his official duties"?

So how can his son Wyatt Wolfe mention "use is strictly prohibited"?

And why does Wyatt Wolfe mention "Credit is given to the respective owners of all photographs"?

Felix c 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Richard Jeppson.gifRegarding the copyright tag on the photo, I am 100% sure it is a military photo. This has been discussed in the past (if you would look at the history this happened before as well). I personally feel some people are overzelous in terms of removing picture (including this one).

The subject of this article is my grandfather, who served in the Army Air Corp during WWII. I have no doubt that this is a military issued photo, especially given the fact that he is standing in front of the plan that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima Japan in 1945.

My problem is, now this picutre will be deleted within a day or two with absolutely no discussion. This is one of the reasons I'm not contributing to Wikipedia any longers. I am removing the tag, upon leaving this explaination as I feel it explains the situation adequately. Davidpdx 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation was probably on my talk page as well as someone elses. My guess is this is going to get deleted before I get an answer. Anytime I've tried to get an answer about a picture I get nothing in terms of a response. I found the same picture on a military webpage and have emailed someone to see if they can track down the sourcing.

Yes, I probably am very bias. As for my grandfather, contacting him is not something that's as easy as making a phone call. He is traveling for about another week. The other problem is I, myself am not inside the US at this point in time, but working in Korea.

One other option (at least for the time being) would be to use this photo Image:Jeppson Tibbets Van Kirk.jpg. Although it also has Tibbets and Van Kirk in the picture as well, I guess it would work. What do you think? Davidpdx 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do that. I don't think I'm going to crop the picture. It's a good idea, but I might as well leave them in the picture. He knows both of the men pretty well and has maintained a friendship with them over the years (this is personal knowledge, not something I would add to the article). It would seem a shame to take them out of such a nice picture.

Hopefully the person I emailed (It looked like an Air Force email address) will contact me and give me at least a clue where to start. I think the military is going to have to give permission for its use more then likely. I'll add a note to the talk page of the article outlining what I'm doing and that this picture is a replacement for the other one and that once I get permission I can add the one of him in front of the plane back (maybe I'll still leave this one if it seems relevent). Thanks for your help. Davidpdx 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Rationale template?

Up for IFD? Surely not. The image I'm wanting FUC is a university logo that has the correct FU template but not rationale. Surely I shouldn't put it up for deletion.--NMajdan•talk 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That script, should it fill in everything when it opens up the tabs? On my computer, it opens the various pages in new tabs but doesnt fill them out and doesn't submit. I'll keep looking into it.--NMajdan•talk 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I'm using Firefox 2 as well and I also already had those req'd scripts. Still nothing.--NMajdan•talk 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be there. At the very top.--NMajdan•talk 22:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you found it on my monobook.js file. That "improved" one you linked me to is the one I originally had in my .js file but I switched to the other one when I saw it was what you had. So, I've tried both.--NMajdan•talk 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't forget that.--NMajdan•talk 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that actually worked. Now to go back through my js file and figure out what's interfering. I've got a lot of stuff on mine I want to keep. Thanks for the help.--NMajdan•talk 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. One of my favs is the personallinks one. You can add various pages to the 'navigation' box on the left side. Good stuff. Also, adding the UTC time to the top and when you click it, it purges the page.--NMajdan•talk 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it was just the ordering. I had the required addons at the top and the imagedelete script at the bottom. I just moved the imagedelete script to the top right below to two addons and now it works.--NMajdan•talk 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this script is very useful. Makes it a lot easier.--NMajdan•talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Soso

Saw II Picture

USGS

• All I did was click on the link, and my PC ground to a halt. I'm not touching that program again. Google Maps is efficient by comparison (and it ain't, in general).
  Wahkeenah 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for your concern

Question

Mea culpa. Minkus2816 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:An IDF M109 self-propelled howitzer fires into Southern Lebanon.png

How are you hunting for these images btw? --Cat [[User talk:Cool

Cat|out]] 11:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use on Alodia.jpg

The Black Parade GA help

Update on Morris Jeppson ImageI recieved a nice response from the Air Force, but I'm still not sure to go about doing this so this is done properly. I'm hoping to get it fixed so the picture won't be deleted. Anyway here is there response:

Thank you for your e-mail. All photographs located on the Agency homepage are considered to be in the public domain. You are welcome to use it, we just ask that you give the Agency credit for the photograph.

MRS LYNN GAMMA HQ AFHRA/RSA

The website was: http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/photo_galleries/509_composite_group_history/Captions/039_Lt_Jeppson.htm

Can you give me some help in terms of what I should do? Thanks! Davidpdx 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..I really didn't understand how to do all that, but I think I have a better idea now. I uploaded the other (slightly larger) image you recommended as a new file (had a hard time because the file extension was diffrent. I'll just let the old one get deleted. Can you take a look at the image licensing and see if I did it correctly? Image:Morris Jeppson.jpg Thanks.. Davidpdx 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet in infoboxesI appreciate your help with all of the image procedures. This kind of stuff is new to me, so your responses were definitely informative. It may take me awhile to get this all squared away, so I may enlist the help of others on this. Don't worry about your earlier response; you seem like someone who is very knowledgeable, that's why I went to you with this question. By the way, how do we edit the infobox to include both the logo and helmet? I have no clue. Thanks again.Football79 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Nomanation for Deletion of Image:Donald North Court (CY).jpgI was wonder why you nomanated this photo for deletion. The photo was done by me, non-objectable, and was for the Camp Yawgoog article. KB1KOI 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RayDavis.jpg

If you look at this image which states their affiliation is not with the White House, then it can't be a federal government photo. I didn't see anything else on the website talking about their copyright status. Could you show me where you say they said the photos were taken by Eric Draper? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fed gov agency, but the photos were taken in the White House and, at least in 2004, by the White House photographer, which is fed. gov. employee - so they should be public domain. Although they don't detail on who was the photographer for Ray Davis (which is not part of the 2004 photos), I think it is resonable to assume that they didn't bring their own photographer on that occasion. So it should also be public domain. AdamSmithee 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Any thought? AdamSmithee 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your comments got lost in the confusion on the rest of my talk page. Unless we have proof it was by the WH photographer, there are too many other possibilities for the copyright of this image. The location is obvious, but irrelevant. An AP photographer could have taken the image, or another press agency. Any why wouldn't they bring along their own photographer? Unless the copyright stats can be confirmed, we can't have a copyright status. You should e-mail this organization and ask them if they are willing to release the image freely. This page will be of assistance in that effort: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Sorry for the delay again. --MECU≈talk 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template | 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RE:My Sandbox

Thanks for the concern 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Anton Balasingham.jpgI have added the source: www.tamilnet.com for the above image.

But still I am not sure whether I have done it properly. Could you help me on this matter.Thanks.Rajsingam 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But the www.tamilnet.com has some internal problem. I couldn't open it. Can't you extend the time until the Tamilnet could be accessible.Rajsingam 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. But I hope I will provide the HTML tag at the earliest possible. By the by I went through your user profile, there you have mentioned about your distant German ancestry. I am going to publish a book on "German Memories in Asia". You can get more information about me and the book at Rajkumar Kanagasingam.Rajsingam 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amiri Baraka.jpg

Putting a CC-NC-ND image on Wikipedia is by no means a copyright violation, because neither commercial gain nor creation of derivative works has happened. It is merely against

AMA) 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Adoption OfferHello!

Thanks for your response. Somehow, I get the idea that you like football.  :)

So do I. I'll be happy to accept your offer of adoption. Where do we start?

--LtlKty 05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADOPTHi there,

As a current Adopter with the

Adopt-a-User

program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new

here

.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.

Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a

list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of

talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[reply]

Your bot seems to have a glitchPhotos

• Image:Schadler robert.jpg
• Image:Evans allen.jpg
• Image:Rowan ruth.jpg
• Image:Hunter jon blair.jpg
• Image:Sypolt dave.jpg

Were all labled by your bot as unsourced yet, each photo was labled as to its source with the text; Official Press Release Photo from WV Legislature. Press Release photos are public domain and for General Public Use. They were labled with the GFDL which should be correct. Sourced and labled, what more it your bot looking for? --71Demon 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are sourced the same

* Image:Betty Ireland, West Virginia Secretary of State.jpg

*

=/\= | 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Fair Use Images on Wikipedia

An article which you started, or significantly expanded,

DYK

!

On January 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William E. Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

CSD#A7 is not valid, if there is any kind of real assertion of notability (record label, notable band members, tour information). I don't know how many of the ones you tagged meet

WP:MUSIC (I assume almost all), but none of them can be speedily deleted. Also, lack of references does not qualify an article for speedy deletion. I have no idea which administrator asked you to do such mass-tagging, but the admin in question does not seem to understand WP:CSD. Thanks, Prolog 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Kaiser High School logo image

Thanks for your reply. I'm not upset, perhaps I was frustrated. But, when someone twice tells you, "No, you're wrong." then I think they should also maybe offer a suggestion as to how they might find the information or at least a general area to look in. I know it's my responsibility as the uploader to provide the information, but I guess I think that if you're going to be an editor, you might offer some assistance, too. Clearly you had an opinion that the logo I was not properly tagged. My guess is that you could have very easily suggested I look at "logos" as a category. If I had not found it and the logo got deleted would that have been a good outcome? I'm not asking you to tag it for me, but a word in the right direction would have been nice. Especially after you told me twice I was wrong.Gurp13|[[User talk:Gurp13|Talk]] 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Response to adoption questionsIt took me a while to answer because I wanted to give it some thought. You asked really good questions because they caused me to stop and reflect on exactly why I joined. I want my association with Wikipedia to be a long one so I would like to be careful and considerate about how I grow into the community. I've been exploring and found that there is lot to do as a member, just about all of which isn't obvious to the unregistered user. Quite honestly, I'm a bit (understatement) overwhelmed by the scope of the work that needs to be done. I can see that the scope will easily grow as Wikipedia continues to develop. So, to answer your questions:

What I want to get out of adoption? I'd like to learn how to participate well in the community - how to contribute in such a way that reduces the overall scope of work and increases the value of Wikipedia.

What I want to accomplish here at Wikipedia? I would like to eventually become a researcher and help with editing and refining the more challenging problem articles. Maybe I will even introduce a few. Practically though, I should start with something like correcting punctuation, grammar, spelling, links, etc. Can you recommend a good place to look to find simple edits of that type?

What I like to do here on Wikipedia? Read!! The articles I have been interested in are well written and linked. I hadn't yet come across many that require help.

What are my problems at Wikipedia? I haven't yet encountered any.

The first thing I've done is correct the problem I created on your page. It is now just a title. Is there a way to link to a specific page section (similar to # in HTML A tabs)?

Thanks again for working with me. I'll be sure to ask for help and also for review of edits that I do. I'll be sure to change them first in my sandbox. LtlKty 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) ^talk [reply]

Reference to Buffalo Soldier photographIn reference to the Buffalo Soldier photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG you can find the source: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Smithsonian_GIFS/BUFLO1_19209.gif I've already added the source in the image.
--Signaleer 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Image:Rebecca Twigley - Brownlow.jpg for deletion

Thanks for the reply. I knew the image was likely to be questioned, which is why I made sure the fair use rationale was up to scratch. I don't know if it'd be possible to get a photo of the dress; a newspaper article I read said they were thinking of featuring it on a public display, but I don't know if this actually went ahead or not. I'll look into it. --Tntnnbltn 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello"

Dear Mecu,

"Hello!"

This "hello" was brought to you by,

Users: Psdubow and Cocoaguy

This is a copyrighted "hello" and can not be used by others or redistributed without the express-written consent of both of these users.

If you have any questions or comments about this "hello", please feel free to post a message on Psdubow's and/or Cocoaguy's talk page.

talk page

in a few hours and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Cheers and regards,

UTC

)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks

Talk 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Image help

It looks like NMajdan already found one and I just hadn't seen it yet. Thanks for your help. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well it looks like the one I uploaded may have to be deleted. The photographer changed the license on my after I notified him that I used it on Wikipedia. He even said it was ok to use but he still changed the license. I notified him of the issue, so we'll see if it stays. I may notify the photographer of that picture cause it is really good.--NMajdan•talk 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, how do I prove that the image was a CC license when I uploaded it if he has changed it? You can see the photo here and where I said I used the same license he used and then he said "it will be fine." Then he changed it.--NMajdan•talk 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! He changed it back. Now how to I go about getting it "verified" in case he changes it again?--NMajdan•talk 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, get this, the guy changed his license on flickr! I uploaded several good images on Commons of Peterson,

Kevin R. Wilson, Bob Stoops, and some others. Check out the commons:University of Oklahoma#People in athletics for the image. Also, there is commons:Image:Tyrone Willingham.jpg.↔NMajdan•talk 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Unspecified source for Image:Safe_conduct.jpg"Thanks for uploading Image:Safe_conduct.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please." Is this text and licensing - Original scan of military leaflet

This work is in the work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright . Note: This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices ). PD Public domain false false

United States Government . Luxomni 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] RfA I had sent something to Wizardman, so his talk was on my watchlist. When I saw your thing about running for RFA, I was startles the you weren't an admin already! Just a little advice, though they may make an exception for someone with your contributions, many people oppose or go neutral for not a long time on the project (about < 1 year). --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Copyright notice Your deletions in Minneapolis, Minnesota User talk:Mecu/br.js Thanks for the railway station edit. I tried to install your BR tool; pasted the code into my monobook.js, bypassed the cache ... bounced the browser ... cannot see the BR link near watch. Any advice? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) Nope, still nothing. -- UK railway stations - Y . Thanks. I'll get on & put it to use. Good advice - will follow Image:JesseVentura.jpg Deletion of Image:Reservation_in_IIT.PNGHi, I have no objection to the deletion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Orphaned fair use image (Image:220px-IanStanley.jpg)I did not upload this. I worked on the code. trezjr 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [reply] Image:Brick_screenshot.png re: Orphaned fair use image National Titles Sorry I wasn't very clear. First, I am not trying to be exclusionary in the least I just (a) need help with getting the table or template right and (b) was asking for an initial impression of the concept. In other words, if your reaction to the concept was that it was sheer idiocy, then I would not want either of us to waste time on this (I also recognize that even if you think that the concept has merit, the Project may well still reject it when it is presented). In short, I think it still needs work and refinement before it is presented. Without wishing to exclude anybody, I was trying to quickly explain the concept/vision so you could better help with (a) and (b). As to the concept itself, my cryptic reference was to the on-going debate that started with what National Title information should be included in the team infobox and then seemed to expand to the football championship article. In watching and participating in the debate, I have come to several conclusions. #1 Edit wars related to the National Title entry in the team infoboxes and related to counting “recognized” titles (see, this Most national championships section of the football championship article. #3 There is currently no one source on Expedia which lists all teams selected by all polls in all years. #4 A table that sets forth all teams selected by all polls in all years AND makes an effort to logically identify wire and consensus titles AND is then used to populate team infoboxes could solve a lot of problems. With all this in mind, I set about to try to create a sample of the master table that I have in mind with my National Champ project. Although it currently only includes three sample years, I believe that it demonstrates many of the possible yearly results. My vision for the master table would be to list every team that received a #1 vote from the polls recognized by the NCAA and CFDW in every year from 1869 until now. In each year, the table would designate which teams won the Wire Title and which teams won the “consensus” title (currently proposed as teams with 25% or more of the polls in a given year, but easily changed once we get input from the Project). This master table would replace the By Year table in the football championship article and be used to create the other tables in the article like the one in the Most national championships section. The next step would be to modify the team infoboxes to either have two lines – Wire Titles & Consensus Titles or one line with Wire & Consensus Titles with links back to the master table. If folks wanted to, we could even include “claimed” Titles. Hopefully, you now have a clearer understanding of my “vision.” Any help, guidance or counsel that you can provide would be most appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comments. First - a confession - I don't know how to make the orange and yellow look like the Coach year-by-year. I tried copying the code but must have been doing something wrong. Would you please fix it? Your suggestion about providing percentages is a good one - I had already been toying with something like that, but your idea is better. I hear your concerns about the 25% rule and believe that I have some answers to that question, but will save that entire discussion for the Project (by the way, CFDW uses the 25% rule and I don't think they ever have more than 2 "consensus" titles). Finally, from your observation of edit wars, if you know of any years that seem to be particularly contested, I'd like to put them in the sample table so that people can see what the outcome would be.--Tlmclain | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ] Thanks. A template would make sense going forward if all years are going to be included in the table, however, while I am still working the kinks out, I'd like to leave it as a table since its easier for me to change a table.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] MECU: I just went live with the presentation of this idea on WP:CFB at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#National Titles. Your input would be appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ] RE: Image:Cap1.jpg orphaned image Image:Image-Michigan labor day 055.jpg civility, csd, ifd, etc. To be honest Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:MPOGD.jpg) Re: Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mw1-battle.jpg) Image:TheseAreMySongs.JPG P.S. I downloaded this image only once, but it appears there is a duplicate of it. See [4] . . . thanks. SFTVLGUY2 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] It APPEARS I downloaded this image twice, four minutes apart, but in fact I didn't. I wouldn't have any reason to do so. Furthermore, Wiki decides if a photo should be designated .jpg or .JPG, not the editor uploading it. Since the name is exactly the same, wouldn't have Wiki warned me an image with that name already exists? I'm confused by this . . . can you please explain how it could happen? Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain, perhaps not too clearly. When I upload an image, Wikipedia appends the .jpg or .JPG, not I. I simply enter the photo, all of which are labeled .jpg, from my file and Wiki does the rest. Sometimes it retains the .jpg, sometimes it capitalizes it. I understand Wiki thinks there are two different images because one is .jpg and the other is .JPG - what I DON'T understand is why there's a second image. You said this happens often . . . I'm trying to understand why it does. Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] DarknessLord2Okay, I forgive you for the template. However, I would like to know why the userpages I listed (except Jimbo and the WP:'s) aren't up on MfD too if my pages are up there. -- ~ Sign!) (TCE) 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ] Re:Image:Borowski_indians_2006.jpgI'm sorry, I might misunderstand the first criterion, but it is next to impossible that I'll be able to meet with and take a picture of this ballplayer. MLB.com is my only resource for player images. Bookworm1 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] My Image I knew that! I was just going to upload it to the commons. But now I know the license. --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] PJSta 1, 2, & 3.jpegs Image Warning Image: Carleth_and_Steven_Keys.jpg I have responded again. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I have responded again. The issue is now resolved, so please remove the tag from my image. Thanks! Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] No problem; you're just doing your job. After all, calmness is the Wikipedia way :-) Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Re: Fritzbot User:ryanpostlethwaite/0017 Many appologies about my previous comment, I was just a bit annoyed, but we've obviously had our wires crossed. Do I think the aricle has a chance? No, not really to be honest and I've said this to the original author, but he is insistant that we at least try. My main plan was to do the best job we could with it and try and show the editor ( WP:RS in a bid to show why he fails, but he really does want to give it a go. Anyway, its upto you, but if you do remove the MfD, I will have it sorted within a week anyway (and in my opinion deletion review or consented speedy by the author is a much better road to down) RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ] User:Ryanpostlethwaite/0017 James Blake Pic He answered everything well. Thanks again for your help and concern :) AS you're well aware, it's easy to get confused on the image licensing when one starts out. Thanks again for the followup. Regards Captain Courageous 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] PD-Layout I see - I didn't realize it was from an automated tool. As you say, it's not a big concern. --Davepape 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] from Soso Image from Blue Lagoon ???? Actually , im quite confused, there are two pics, are you deleting the duplicate, the one on my page is differant, has no bag in it, well, if you could let me know but if that is the case it makes a lot more sense. (Neostinker 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply] Image:Allison-brewer.jpg Thanks, I will include it... images and copyright are far from my area of expertise. - Jord 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Editor review archivedThanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/MECU/Archive/Archive-Jan2007, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] BrandyN Thx 4 information. Here the page: www.google.com/image I'm sorry, but I don't know which page is the exact page. Montauk-airport.gif With regards to your follow up question. The FAA website is counterintuitive. You can't link directly to an image because it expires. You have to click on the instructions information in blue below the red lettered warning that tells you to link to that page ONLY. That takes you to a map and entry form. I clicked New York and then searched by city for Montauk. The image is a pdf with other data but I jus cropped the diagram. The link: http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp The link to the Montauk diagram (for today only as it will expire) is http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ne_161_18JAN2007.pdf Hope this addresses this issue. Hope this addresses the issue. Americasroof 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Commons Image move helper For your consideration. . . Re: multiple warnings--sometimes, but sometimes it just means a user was around in the old days when, let's face it, our image policies were less strict (it's people like that this template was intended for). I didn't realize about the script. I'll drop by Howcheng's talk page--if he's not interested, then so be it. Chick Bowen 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ] Unspecified source for Image:Kelly_gregg.JPGI'm trying to determine how best to tag this image (and how to tag things with a copyright, in general). I have tried sorting through all the jargon and legalese, and my experience is minimal with copyright law. There isn't anything that I've seen with help in determining copyright or anything that I can reasonably understand that tells me how to apply a tag. Please help. This is a photograph depicting DT Kelly Gregg of the Oklahoma Sooners at the OU-Texas game on October 11, 1997 at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, TX. Kelly Gregg was a Junior at the time of the photograph. I scanned this image from the 1998 Athlon Sports Big XII Edition. It was taken at the OU-Texas game on October 11, 1997 in Dallas, Texas by Layne Murdoch[5], a freelance photographer based in Flower Mound, TX. I am currently in communication with Mr. Murdoch to determine the copyright on the photo and release information. I believe the photo should be considered under the 'low quality image' distribution clause. Please do not delete this photo until I can determine the copyright information. There are currently no collegiate photographs of Gregg that I could find on the internet. Desert sapper 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)desert sapper[reply] I have since added fair use rationale to the photo. Please let me know if this is sufficient or if I need to do something else with it. Desert sapper 17:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)desert sapper[reply] Image copyright problem with Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif= About Anderson's Rule edits Thanks for your critique. I only made technical (as differentiated from content) mods to the article. I agree with you that as written, it is rather difficult to follow. I want to do a little more research before I tackle the content. I'd also like to include a mention of research that shows that the rule is actually a "characteristic" of some semiconductors, but not a general rule. I'll make the technical changes you suggest, and be more careful about how often I save the page. This isn't a contest for me, so the edit count isn't important. --LtlKtytalk | contribs 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] RfA Wizardman would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wizardman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MECU/Archive. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Go for it Mecu, You'd make a great admin RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks MECU - A few more questions RE: Image copyright problem with Image:Tigerliliysuite.gifThanks MEcu for helping me with this. I have a few more questions about copyright use. I believe I have input the correct fair use information now on tigerlilysuite.gif as well as updating it again on the main page. Could you check it for me and let me know if I followed the corrrrect wikipedia direction? Since you mentioned that I can restore it - I went ahead and tried to do so. To answer your question - her husband photographs all her works and it is in the public domain, so perhaps I just should have written public domain? I don't know. I am a arts professor so I am a little out of my element here. Question 2 - I am working on another article about a woman Dorrie Nossiter who died in the 40's. Her grand nephew in UK is providing me with information on her and has images he is using for a book he is writing. How do I approach uploading her picture here? It is on his website and in the public domain as well. He has also given permission but I thought I would ask beforer I go ahead. Thanks for help. ArchiemartinArchiemartin 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for uploading Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC) You've added a fair use license, so the image is now licensed. However, the use of an image under fair use requires a fair use rationale and information on why it's not replaceable. Also, the image must be used on Wikipedia, as fair use orphans can be deleted ("Use it or lose it") -- this is because orphanbot removed it from an article. You can restore it to that article. I've removed the no license tags and marked the other problem that now exist. Also, you said this is from the artist's spouse? Why can't the artist license the image themself? How are you related to them? Ideally, we want freely licensed images here at Wikipedia. If possible, the artist should be willing to license it under a free license. I use CC-BY-SA-2.5 myself, but there are many others, including the GFDL and just releasing into the public domain. Good luck! --MECU≈talk 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Deletionhey mecu, i havent been around for awhile but i am getting back into the swing. i have seen user non-notable . his page also leads to his 'band' page which is also non-notable, has no external citations and has links to purchase their music. both pages should be deleted, imo. how do i go about nominating these pages for deletion? i want to make sure i am doing this with correct etiquette. your own opinion on the pages would be great, as well. The undertow 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] College football Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MECU/Archive/Archive-Jan2007&oldid=1150993846"