User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive10

DYK

Hey, just a couple things I want to ask. First, I'm tryign to learn how to do these, so if I make any mistakes (I think i messed something up in the update i did earlier this morning), just let me know. My main question is, if I create two articles, both following the guidelines of a DYK article, and they have the same "fact", could I combine the two into one DYK article? I haven't seen that so I don't know itf that's acceptable, though I guess I don't see why it wouldn't be. Keep up the good work at DYK, btw.--Wizardman 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the update you did earlier, it was actually Carabinieri's fault for misreading the article. :) However, yes, you could have verified the hook before doing the update. That's in theory -- in practice, I usually rely on the editors to have scrutinized the hook before it gets on to the Next Update page, especially when it's nominated by one of the DYK regulars like Carabinieri. But it was caught on WP:ERRORS and fixed, so no biggie. It's a very minor offense, especially compared to not protecting the image and letting it get vandalized. :) The only thing I would appreciate is if you could do the notifications. But welcome aboard to the DYK team! We're glad to have you, especially since we've been losing people recently (GeeJo, Nishikid64, ++Lar, and Blnguyen have all gone AWOL).

As for multiple articles, yes that can be done. I've seen a few instances of it over the last few months, like Koreans in Iran and Koreans in the Arab world both were in the same DYK entry, but you're still limited to 200 characters. howcheng {chat} 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I think I did this one right. Though you forgot to protect the last image that was up. Funny thing is I actually misread that Boans article myself apparently. Oh, and

Did you know? was updated. On 11 May, 2007, a fact from the article Gerónimo Lluberas, RAF West Freugh, and Older Parthenon, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Yeah, just combined them if that's okay :)--Wizardman 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't forget to protect it -- I'm a Commons admin too, so I just protected it on Commons instead. See? :) howcheng {chat} 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harrison

The hook seems fine to me. Look out tomorrow though when I'm planning on writing an article on an Irish player who had two brothers, three cousins and a son who all played for Ireland! Andrew nixon 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Constitution of Nicaragua

The hook looks great. I hope it gets to the main page! =) Thanks for nominating it. LaNicoya •TALK• 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Howdy. Thanks for the heads up on the non-free status of the photos I took (here and here) of the Calder sculpture. However, if you read further down US Copyright Act in section D, the copyright is only valid for the life of the author. Does the copyright then transfer to his estate? I can't find any other pictures of Calder works on WP or Commons that use this tag. Thoughts? Thanks! pinotgris 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are not a copyright lawyer, I would suggest not going directly to the law, as it references other things and whatnot. Your best bet for easy understanding is this chart. You shouldn't find any pictures of Calder works on Commons because of the non-free problem. If there are any other on WP that don't use {{statue}} then they are incorrect and need to be changed. This point about 3D works of art being copyrighted like this is not very well-known among editors. howcheng {chat} 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Balukas

Hey! Glad you are featuring Jean Balukas as the lead dyk but I have one quibble with the editing of the entry (is it necessary that it be shortened?) the edited entry has far less impact I think because it loses the most important part: she is the only player to win seven U.S. Opens, period. The fact that the seven wins were consecutive makes it even more impressive but being consecutive is secondary. Reading the current entry, someone could easily believe that other players won more U.S. Opens, just not consecutively. If DYKs were even longer I would have loved to mention that her streak started at 13 years of age.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's at the top with the picture, I'd really like to keep it as short as possible (longer ones at the top mean taking up more lines). Besides, this isn't supposed to a summary of the article, just enough of a hook to entice people into reading the article. The 13 years old thing is really good, for example, so I just rewrote it to focus on that. Hope you like it. howcheng {chat} 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. "Record-setting" doesn't so strongly imply that the salient fact was that the streak was consecutive as did "the only player to."--Fuhghettaboutit 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it was shorter. (: howcheng {chat} 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Housetruckers nomination

Thanks for the nomination for housetrucker on Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 7. As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, what is the next process? cheers :-) Mombas 08:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing to do at this point is to keep an eye on the nomination. If anyone has any reasonable objections, you may be able to fix them. If there are none, it will eventually get selected to on the Main Page (it's a roughly FIFO system). Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

Hello,

last year you deleted this image. The reasons given in the deletion request were OR, AB. Would you be so kind to point me a page where I could decipher these cryptic abbreviations or simply tell me what they stand for? :) There is an identical image on the Portuguese Wikipedia pointing the English one as a source, but now this source is gone... I need to know what to do with our image :). Thanks for your help, PatríciaR ^discussão 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these stand for "orphaned" (not used anywhere) and "absent uploader". The glossary can be found at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Glossary. As for this image itself, it was licensed under the GFDL and drawn by User:Bcrowell. I can restore it if you want, or move it to Commons instead. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could restore it and move it to Commons, since the image is in use in pt.wiki. Thanks! PatríciaR ^msg 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of doing that, I made a much prettier one at the same name. See Image:Xiangqiboard.png. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that you can choose. This image is now at Image:Xiangqiboard-bw.png. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I will definitely use your image ;), thanks a million! PatríciaR ^msg 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xiangqi.png

The image was uploaded by Andreas Kaufmann. I merely recompressed it, as can be seen from the file history. It would make more sense for you to talk to him about it. --Zundark 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured if you were modifying the image, then you were a recent editor to Xiangqi, or at least a concerned party, so that's why I picked you to notify, especially considering that Andreas Kaufmann is only a sporadic contributor these days. howcheng {chat} 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Contenders (band) cleanup?

Hi! Thanks for your comments and the others who pitched in. I've learnt a lot. Do you think it is clean enough to remove the tag now? Shodobe 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reupload of deleted image?

Hi, Howcheng. If my memory isn't tricking me, the image Image:IndianaTempleDoom.jpg is a reupload of the recently deleted image Image:Indiana Jones 1.jpg. Can you check that?

Even if they're not the same Image:IndianaTempleDoom.jpg is wrongly tagged as a screenshot (Indiana Jones movies don't use an odd screen proportion of 485 × 739 and the characters don't face the camera). It's a copyrighted image that Lucasfilm Ltd. licenses for its clients and partners, like imdb, probably under written permission. That is, even if these images are not the same, they engage in the same error. Do you believe the later could be speedy deleted so? Thanks, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a different image. The one you previously nominated for deletion was a picture of him holding a whip. I don't remember the movie well enough to say whether this scene was in it, but it might have been, and there's no reason to think it hasn't been cropped either. It's not speedyable, but you are free to nominate it for deletion. howcheng {chat} 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ygnacio del Valle is a GA now!

Howard,

I just wanted to let you know I have finally promoted Ygnacio to GA and congratulate you on your efforts, not to mention to thank you for exhibiting a superb and exemplary committment to editing Wikipedia and taking part in the GA process as nominator and author. It has been a real pleasure to see all my peskiness being handled so well.

Congratulations again and good luck with your further nominations, which I am looking forward to!

PrinceGloria 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Inform you

You and the number of articles you have successfully submitted to DYK has been noted here because you have been discovered as one of the twenty-five highest DYK article contributors. If you feel compelled to continue to update your number of DYKs on this list, and therefore the list itself, then it would be very helpful and help make sure that the list is as up-to-date as possible. If you, indeed, do not wish to be present on this list, then please notify me, the creator. Regards, —A • D ^Torque 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for the note about DYK and Pisonia brunoniana. Am chuffed. Thanks for your great work with the DYK. Kahuroa 12:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore Robinson DYK

Thank you for using my factoid on the DYK section - it made my week! Have a good one. --Yahoo!Sirius 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question...

Regarding my May 8 nom, it's all there sourced to reputable citations within the article, as I noted in my reply to you at T:TDYK. Could you maybe take a look at the article and see if you have a suggestion for a better nom, as you so capably have done in the past? Thanks again for your time and help as always. Yours, Smee 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination credited

Did you know? was updated. On 13 May, 2007, a fact from the article Cult Awareness and Information Centre, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Since you adjusted the nom, I give you credit for it. Thank you. Smee 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-05-14 POTD

I c-uploaded both, because the frame version will still be on the MainPage, though it hasn't been protected at Commons. The redirect still works (though it hides the c-uploaded info on the frame).--Pharos 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for image script

I have created a warning template specific to {{GFDL presumed}} images - {{GFDL presumed warning}} - that can be used when tagging them with no source/no license. Would it be possible for you to change the "no source" and "no license" buttons of your script so that they will search the text for "{{GFDL presumed" and "{{GFDL-presumed", and if either string is found, use {{GFDL presumed warning}} instead of {{image source}}? Thanks. --BigDT 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works great! Thanks! --BigDT 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Login unsuccessful

Moved to WP:AN#Login unsuccessful

Well, the consensus is pretty much, "You're screwed." There's not much we can do for this situation. You can keep trying different passwords for your Bababoum account, but if that doesn't work, you'll have to create a new account and start editing from there. If you do the latter, you may want to make redirects at User:Bababoum and User talk:Bababoum to your new account and add an explanation of what happened. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little more information: It seems that all accounts that had the password the same as the username have been disabled. New temporary passwords were created and emailed to those who had added an email address, but since you didn't do that, you didn't get a new password. So to reiterate, you're screwed. Create a new account, use a better password, and this time, add your email address. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks anyway. Is there no way the password of the account can be changed? 82.29.19.104 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but you'll need to appeal to one of the developers. See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? for details and [1] for a list. I have no information on how often these kinds of requests are granted. Good luck. howcheng {chat} 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again you've helped a lot. I'll let you know how it goes. 82.29.19.104 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. Wojciech

Thank you. Much appreciated. --Poeticbent talk 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Haydarpaşa Cemetery

Hi! I appreciate very much your contribution. Thanks. Happy wikiEditing! CeeGee 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent POTD concern

I just c-uploaded Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg, but I'm rather concerned about its copyright status. It has been labeled PD-ineligible, without a clear justification. The only discussion of it copyright (the issue was not raised at its FP nomination) appears to employ flawed reasoning (we do not consider Livermore images PD). I suggest we skip this image over until such issues can be fully discussed.--Pharos 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to link to their copyright page.--Pharos 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And see also {{PD-USGov-DOE}} for our policies on respecting claimed copyrights of other federally-funded but nongovernmental scientific institutions.

I'm thinking the logic is that it falls under WP:PD#Non-creative works because it was made by a machine, not a human, but I agree it would be best to skip this one for now and sort out the licensing before it goes on the Main Page. I'll write up a new POTD real quick. howcheng {chat} 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rectifying this so quickly.--Pharos 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on Images

Thanks for response on my copyright question. I have edited the image to reflect {{PD-self}}. I simply wanted to be directed as to how a user logs an image's copyright so that it is not removed and would like to make sure that by adding {{PD-self}} to the image it will not be removed. You're assistance is much appreciated. Danread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danread (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I assure you, nobody is going to change the licensing of an image that's been released PD-self. However, that doesn't mean vandals might mess it up. The only thing you can do is to keep the page on your watchlist and get notified if someone edits the image description page. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car identification

In case you don't check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles regularly, the car you wanted identifying is almost certainly a 1931 Chevrolet Independence AE 4-door sedan. :) HTH, Lewis Collard! (natter) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is source needed for confirmed PD-art?

Do we need to give source if an image is confirmed PD-art? I found a black-white reproduction of one image that confirms it is a 17th century piece, do I need to find a color version if we have a color or is it enough to mention author and details, without a hyperlink to a source?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you found a b/w version, I think that's good enough, but the hyperlink should be there as "proof" that the artwork is indeed by the person you claim. Don't forget to add the name of the artist (maybe with birth and death years). howcheng {chat} 02:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK question

HI. What about my History of Exploration in Tibet article for a DYK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should nominate it a T:TDYK, but you should also add some inline citations to it. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atar Volant

Hi! Atar Volant has been redirected to SNECMA Atar Volant, could you add the DYK tag to the redirected page. Thanx, STTW (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need me to do that, and why didn't the talk page get moved as well? howcheng {chat} 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved yesterday by User:Rlandmann, no worries I have moved the DYK to the correct article. STTW (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Dominguez

Hi there, You deleted this entry back in March 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_dominguez_leiva I don't find your reasons convincing, you state: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" Antonio Dominguez is the author of more than twenty books in French and Spanish. He currently resides in London, hence the entry in English. Please reconsider. Thanks.

You are free to rewrite the article, which I see you already have. The problem is, the article doesn't say why he's notable. There are no references either. Please read WP:PROF for the guidelines notability of academics and please make your article conform to that. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japoteurs DYK

I got a notice that this article made it, but I don't see it on the DYK page. Am I in the right place? Wrad 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I bumped yours for the next update because there wasn't enough room, and notified you by mistake. Sorry about that. howcheng {chat} 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it was bumped to tomorrow? Wrad 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be on in about 6-7 hours. I'll be on at 11 PM California time to do next update. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, even better! Thanks. Wrad 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thanks for the note, and thanks especially for your hard work maintaining DYK. -- Samir 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gaarudi Gombe

Howcheng,

As per your suggestions in my talk page, I have responded to the deletion notice of Image:Garudi_gombe.jpg in its talk page here.

By the way, I have also moved the article Karanji lake to Karanji Lake.

Thanks for your suggestions -- Amarrg 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ring-tailed Lemurs

Hi Howcheng! This image is scheduled as POTD for 26th May, but I've just nominated it for delisting. Is there any chance you could shuffle it for one of the other images so that the nomination can run its course? I'm reasonably confident that there'll be a consensus to delist, in which case it would be better if it didn't make an appearance on the main page this week, IMO. It's already had its day of fame back in 2005, so that doesn't seem unfair. --YFB ¿ 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --YFB ¿ 16:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

How do you want me to prove that they came from the trailer? I could send you the trailer if you want... By the way, I typically run trailers in slow motion when I do screenshots in order to avoid text, etc. --PhantomS 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have this on DVD or something? Maybe you can put the information of the DVD (publisher, catalog number, etc). Basically, all the information someone would need if they wanted to independently verify the image. Does that help? howcheng {chat} 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde DVD. I think there's only one...the one with both the 1932 and 1941 versions. --PhantomS 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so add that information to the image description page and you're all set. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about to the film category in order to prevent redundancy? As there are several, I think it would make sense, since they are all from the same source. In addition, it is setting a precedent about stating where the trailers are coming from. --PhantomS 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a pain, but it should be on the image description page, because you don't know that other readers will go to the category page. Or at the least, there should be a pointer on each image description page, like, "See Category:... for more specific copyright information." howcheng {chat} 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like at Image:Ingrid Bergman in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Trailer(2).jpg or should there be more? --PhantomS 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works. Basically, that's enough information if someone wants to buy/rent the DVD themselves. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. - Francis Tyers · 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK fixed

Please see the nom in May 16 for Scientology Task Force, nom by me, created by Like.liberation, and issues addressed and fixed up by ClaudeReigns. What do you think of it for a future DYK at this point? Smee 06:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

About future picture

Hello, regarding your message on my talk and template Template:POTD/2007-06-15 ; I find it consistent and not going to details text involve key points. Maybe only "dictator" could be a bit wrong as he usually referred as "authoritarian president" or "authoritarian head of state", but as article text also uses and "dictator" it would be no drama if current definition be used. Cheers, M.K. 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply here. This being a wiki, feel free to update the text yourself (as well as the article). Cheers. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Hi. First, I want to apologize for the inconvenience of going through every one of the images I have uploaded without a source. It was an involuntary mistake. I just did not know that also with them, I have to use references. I will work on correcting the ones I have used in the articles written by me, but I do not mind if some others are deleted. I have been an excellent contributor to the wikipedia and work hard on my articles, to let a loose end. Sadly, my work has been brought to attention only due to this source image issue. I have taken myself most of the images I have used in historical articles from material in the NY public library, they can be found in some books and most of them come from private collections. However, there are not references about the photographers, probably because they are more than a hundred years old. I am going to add a source were they can be verified. In the articles about painters, I have tried to upload the images to the Wikimedia Commons. It is with the movie poster images that I am lost. I can specify the source, but I do not know what kind of explanation about why is permitted under the fair use policy other than being a low-resolution, smaller version of a poster used to illustrate the movie article. Can you give me a hint?. Thanks Miguelemejia 9:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barkley_1988_SI_Cover.jpg listed for deletion

From my understanding, to upload a non-free cover of a magazine it must meet the following criteria:

illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,

with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above

In order for the image to be used there must be mention of SI in the article. In addition, the image should appear next to the mention, that is why the article states that Charles Barkley made his first appearance on the magazine, per fair-use rationale. Other Fair-Use rationale includes:

It represents a Historical moment in Charles Barkley's career of when he first appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

No fair use photo could be used to replace the image.

It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the work in any way.

This image is of a scaled down resolution and copies made of it will be inferior.

The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the original work.

The fair use rationale used here is similar to MJ's free-use rationale. Please inform if you feel otherwise. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD images without source

Hi there, this is just a friendly warning. I noticed that you tagged some images I'd transferred to the Commons as missing sources and also done so on their versions in Wikipedia. I managed to transfer those to the Commons whilst on auto-pilot so they should definitely be challenged there. My bad.

However, I got into a whole heap of trouble on Wikipedia the other day when I'd tagged 100 or so PD-art images with the {{nosource}} template and caused an almighty row. Personally, I'm with you, all images, PD or not, should have source information - as its about verification of the authenticity of the image even if copyright is 99.9% certain due to age - but this wasn't the view of the rest of the community at the time. As you can read at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive244#Sources for Mona Lisa?, I got quite a hammering. Hopefully you may have a more friendly reception than I did....but don't be surprised if you meant with indignance. Madmedea 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. All images should have sources, even if they're clearly public domain images. At the very least, there should be a link to a page that proves that image is what we say it is. Let's say we have a 3000x3000px image of some old painting. I would be satisfied with a link to an art gallery that sells prints of the painting (and maybe only has a thumbnail), just so we have proof that the artist and the title are correct. For example, I just found what may be an error in José Antonio Estudillo. The guy in the painting doesn't look like the guy in the photo, but looks like his brother instead. But yes, I'm basically getting the same reaction as you did (see User talk:Hugh Manatee). howcheng {chat} 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After all the arguing I designed this template {{PD-nosource}} as a slightly less "threatening" tag to use on PD images as it won't cause the image to be deleted but can be pointed at to prompt the user to find a source. I personally, however, still think we're well within policy to use the normal {{nosource}} tag. The main problem is that contributors seem to only see source information as having a role in verifying copyright when it does much more than that - I tried to aliken it to a fact in an article, we wouldn't except the truth of that without a reference, so why should we accept an image without the same level of referencing? The thing that drives me particularly mad is its not just Grandfather clause images that have no sources but new images - I was working with a fellow editor putting together pages on famous pre-raphaelite paintings just recently and he wasn't adding sources for his uploads... and anyway, if its PD it should be on Commons!Madmedea 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've only restarted patrolling ANI recently. Guess that discussion must have been right before I started up again otherwise I would have chimed in for you. howcheng {chat} 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SI

Just delete the pics, I'm aware of how blatant copyright paranoia has gotten around here, no need to waste anyone's time nominating them all and notifying me. I learned this a couple of weeks when all the pics in Lawrence Taylor were nommed and my arguments failed to save them. Pardon me if I didn't nom them all myself. Quadzilla99 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "copyright paranoia" only belittles the Foundation's licensing policy goals in keeping non-free material to a minimum. howcheng {chat} 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that already. As much as you would like to believe so, U.S. copyright laws are not as clear-cut as you're making them out to be. I'm fully aware of the image policies here so save your time giving me explanatory links. Like I said I'm not going to fight the noms, but I will call them what they are. Quadzilla99 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said copyright laws are clear-cut. In fact, I'm not even talking about copyright laws -- it's about the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with Wikipedia content. The more non-free content we have on here, the more difficult that becomes, and the further we move away from the Foundation's goals. howcheng {chat} 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine covers not deleted

Hi, Howcheng. There are two magazine covers that I nominated for deletion a while back but weren't deleted by closing admin Johntex, and I plan to send them to Deletion review. I would like your opinion on either is this a good idea. (Actually it were 3 magazine cover images that he decided to keep, but one of them was speedy-deleted as a copyvio right after his ifd closing)

As suggested in WP:DRV, I've firstly contacted the admin in this talk and, after reviewing his decision, he said he still believe the images should be kept, and suggested a Deletion Review process.

Admin Johntex usually has a very permissive view on usage of unfree content, as evidenced by his comments on this ifd debate about a magazine cover he uploaded shortly before his brief interest on ifd closing that led to the keeping og that two (actually 3) magazine covers.

So, if you had the time, could you take a look at the discussion in this talk and say if you believe that a deletion review would be in place?

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at DRV for the first time in a while. There's a nice new box at WP:DRV#Purpose which explains when DRV is appropriate. I believe that the non-deletion of spurious fair use claims is an incorrect interpretation of the Foundation policy, but then again, you knew that. :) I believe you are justified in going to DRV for this -- remember that DRV is not to be followed just because you don't like the outcome of a debate. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One caveat is that DRV sees a lot of different people including a number who may not agree with your (and my) stance on non-free images, so that may not exactly be the venue you want. howcheng {chat} 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 DYK Medal

Moved to user page

Agoston Haraszthy

Just so you know, I believe someone has compromised your screen name, take a look at the talk page for this article.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was me. Were you thinking of this edit? :) But thanks for your concern. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first look it seemed like a joke, glad your account was not compromised. The randomness of that is very interesting. If you have a chance you should take a look at his book Zinfandel: A history of a grape and its wine. He was lecturing recently at UCDavis as well on the history of Zinfandel.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not a wine person (cheap wine like Charles Shaw is good enough for me). I started the D'Agostini article while compiling List of California Historical Landmarks and came to the Agoston article because I was going through the The Bancroft Library Portrait Collection and uploading public domain pictures for people who don't have one. I was actually rather surprised to find an article for him, but it turns out the image of him is when he was a child, so I didn't think it would be too useful for the article. If you disagree, I'll be happy to upload it here. howcheng {chat} 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a childhood photograph would not really be all that appropriate. Although if we add a history of him as a child, then it would be. --Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Thanks for making the {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} tag available and applying it to my upload. I still have not been able to find that tag in the list of tags so I went ahead and added to the list so others like me might have a chance at finding it. --Dbiel 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Norris

Please feel free to delete the image of Frank Norris that I uploaded. I've been waiting for someone to find a better one! --MosheA 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture?

What determines a featured picture? It seems you're the only one who can do that, which to me is against the community philosophy of Wikipedia. Maiku 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably looks like that to you because I'm the one who writes the Picture of the day blurbs, although anyone is welcome to (no one else has really volunteered). However, Featured Pictures are selected at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates by members of the community. If you know of any photos or other images you would like featured, please nominate them there. Nominees should meet the criteria set in Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Regards, howcheng {chat} 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibly unfree images

Hi, you listed some images on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The uploader I assume (an IP) of this section has changed the license tags. Assume good faith on this one? Garion96 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AGF looks good to me. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn...

Hi, Howcheng. I didn't fully understood why you withdrew your nomination for deletion of this magazine cover. The only mention in the article to this cover image is the phrase "His singular celebrity status as the Sixers franchise player led to his first appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated" followed a reference pointing to the player's nba bio where the magazine (neither it's cover) is not mentioned at all.

What exactly made you change your mind in regards to the concerns you original posted on the nomination ("Does not increase the user's understanding in a way that words alone cannot...")?

I'm asking that because I plan to nominate the image for deletion, but you previous nomination and withdrawn sound to me as a clue that I'm probably missing something.

Thanks, --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I was assuming that the editor would actually back up the statement with a valid reference and I didn't check it. I was willing to give it to him otherwise, because the pose and the words "Charles the Great" on the cover really drive that point home. If the statement remains unreferenced, then it's original research. howcheng {chat} 05:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. howcheng {chat} 05:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg

Please note that there is no consensus to delete this image (as well as the following WWII images), it also has a fair use rationale.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but policy trumps consensus every time. I'll add more explanation to the IFD discussion log. howcheng {chat} 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and fair use applies here: if the rationale is incomplete, expand it, but this is a unique photograph illustrating the start of the WWII, what is wrong with using it under fair use to illustrate the begining of German invasion?? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because in order for non-free content to be used on Wikipedia, that non-free content itself must be required in order to understand the text. In other words, if I can understand just fine what the article/paragraph is trying to say without the non-free image, then we really don't need it. Non-free images must increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. If a reader could potentially say, "I really need a picture of this to understand what it's talking about," then that's when the use of non-free content can be justified. This specific image is just being used to make the article look nicer -- that's a decorative use and fails WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree, this is a highly notable image that increases the readers understanding of the related articles. Therefore: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is notable, then there needs to be discussion about the image itself and its impact on later events. Examples of images that are notable in and of themselves: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, Earthrise, The Blue Marble, or even Image:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1.jpg. howcheng {chat} 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Image: Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg

I am not sure I understand why you deleted the above image. There was no clear consensus to delete it.

I assume you put it under this category:

A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g., a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in related articles.

The photo in southern Africa though is quite iconic. Indeed Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world and has come to be an emblem of Zimbabwe's problems. I am not go to quote all the different newspapers, TV channels, magazines and Internet sites that showed it - that is on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 9 page. As someone who follows African news I would say that this image was quite iconic. The showing of the photos caused an international uproar. IMHO to make a decision on this photo one needs to research the topic that the photo illustrates. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because policy trumps consensus every time. Perhaps you are used to AFD and/or CFD where consensus usually rules the day, but IFD is more policy-based than the others. Anyway, User:Nardman1 has asked for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 29, so please feel free to continue the discussion there so that it may be centralized. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hertzfeldt image

Hi Howcheng,

As requested, the OTRS ticket number I received after having permission granted for our use of the "donhertzfeldt.jpg" image is: #2007051710015191

PLEASE NOTE that this is NOT for the Wireimage photo that you removed. I did not upload the Wireimage photo. This is for the jpeg of the same name that had previously been in the Don Hertzfeldt bio (Don at his art desk) and had been nominated for deletion. Please restore this image.

Thanks! Sleepyjuly 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image restored

I have restored Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg- the IFD nomination was unanimous in favor of keeping it, and it was explained (at great length) why this image is necessary. Raul654 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it was never explained in the deletion debate exactly what is so important about this specific image. You stated, "It's necessary" -- why exactly? -- and "it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article" -- How so? I'm afraid that we need the exact reasons. For non-free images, it should be the case that if the article is lacking the image, it significantly impairs the reader's ability to understand the topic. Billy Ripken needs that exact baseball card so that you can see where "Fuck face" is written. Demi Moore needs the magazine cover so that you can see the pose that became famous and parodied. Without this justification, the picture serves only a decorative function, which is a violation of WP:NFCC #8. Lastly, because you have a vested interest in the image (being the uploader), I believe it's a conflict of interest for you to restore it. IFD is unlike other deletion venues -- policy is a lot more exacting and a bit more subtle than at AFD or CFD and it certainly trumps any consensus when the consensus isn't based in policy. I'm deleting the image again and am asking you to take it to DRV instead. Regards, howcheng {chat} 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Udinese vs roma.jpg

Since you deleted this image, would you properly close the discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 22? Not only is it still receiving comments, but I can't request a DRV on it until the discussion is closed. :) Thanks. -N 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howcheng {chat} 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pianist image

Could you please show me where is this rule written?

"Regardless of the importance of the scene, this screenshot does not expand the reader's understanding in a way that words cannot; the text already adequately describes the scene."

Or is this your POV? Because mine is strongly against your statement an has the same value.

Please show the rule that states these words, please. MachocariocaMachocarioca

Sure: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8. howcheng {chat} 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg

Boink! Why was the image deleted? -- Cat ^chi? 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I put the wrong log date in the deletion summary. You can find the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 2#Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg. howcheng {chat} 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any way to contest this? I seriously believe a promo photo is no more copyrighted than say a screenshot. I do not believe promo photos are discouraged unless a free alternative is available. -- Cat ^chi? 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the factors in determining fair use according to U.S. law (IANAL) is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Law). A screenshot is a tiny portion of an episode, while a promo piece (which BTW you need to prove that it came from a press kit) is an entire copyrighted work in and of itself. That's why screen grabs are preferred. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banlist

You edited my article on Wc3Banlist proposing that it doesn't fit the speedy delete specifications. Can you tell me what is to happen from this point? Is my article safe from deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.137.52 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, it's just safe from "speedy" deletion ("speedy" meaning that no discussion is required). You still may need to prove that the software meets the guidelines set in WP:SOFTWARE. howcheng {chat} 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blowland

Can you please block User:84.241.150.26 and User:Blowland? They have no constructive edits whatsoever, and keep on vandalising my userpage. Can you please, have this activeties stopped by banning 'em? My page is being vandalised on a near daily base now! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them have had any edits in the past 24 hours, so at this point, I'll decline to do anything. If you experience more vandalism, post it to WP:AIV where you will probably get a faster response. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion notices

Thank you for being so polite with me in your edit summaries. I am curious though, why retain the deletion notices once the discussion has been archived? How long will these deletion notices stay in place? Smee 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

These will stay in place until the closing administrator makes a decision on whether to keep or delete the image. The log page may not be displayed on WP:IFD anymore, but the discussion is still active until it's closed. howcheng {chat} 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. Thanks again for being so polite during this whole process, your kind demeanor on the project is a rare treat. Smee 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DRV on Dien Bein Phu Image

Hi,

On the basis of the DRV discussion, I'm restoring the image. I do this because I believe the legal issues remain unclear (and most commenters want to discuss the issue more); absent intervention from WP:OFFICE, this means that further discussion is warranted and helpful to the understanding of all. The image should be relisted at IfD: I think you are best able to write the proper nomination.

FWIW, donning my lawyer's hat for a moment, I think your argument regarding the image's significance is a good one -- without any text supporting it in the article, the image is merely decorative. However, I think the argument regarding "improper enrichment through the disregard of commercial rights" is a red-herring. Historical photographs, even when still under copyright, are routinely used in critical analysis when the conditions of fair-use are met: as others observed, that is the purpose of the fair use doctrine. The question is whether the conditions of fair use are met. At present, I think they are not, but the article might be edited to include analysis of the photograph by its supporters. Whether that is appropriate for WP to do is an issue for further discussion also, unless ordered from on high. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 8

So is the most recent version strong enough? I'd have thought it was almost too strong, but then I'm not engaged in policing the policy. Tony 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tesseract.gif

This FP is no longer used in the tesseract article. There are several "improved" versions by the same author that are now used in that article instead. Perhaps User:JasonHise should be contacted about nominating one of the improved versions to replace this FP, before we feature this on the MainPage? Thanks.--Pharos 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still being used in other articles, so it still qualifies for FP status, but I agree, not having it in Tesseract is kind of odd. Looks like I will have to replace it with a different image. D'oh! howcheng {chat} 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is done now. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bond girl

You removed two galleries from this article citing WP:NFCC. Then someone put it back. I just have a query - one or two of them appear to be public domain (see User:Stonedead's uploads), although some might be dubious (see WP:HD#Bond Girls). Is it still grounds to remove the galleries because most of the images are fair use? x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment required

Hi there, as a fellow contributor to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images I was wondering if you'd take the time to comment on the proposal I've made on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Proposal for an addition to the page introduction. Thanks. Madmedea 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rutka Laskier

Dear Howcheng, I humbly thank you for selecting this article for DYK, and also for letting me know. Badagnani 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arvo Pärt image

Hi -- I noticed that the image of Arvo Pärt, was deleted (Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_30). I missed the I&MfD, so I might be speaking up too late, but I think that the Image:JD_Salinger.jpg precedent could apply to Pärt. Searching on "Arvo Pärt reclusive" shows that he, like Gorecki, is famously reclusive--perhaps not to the same extent as Salinger, but certainly orders of magnitudes more than most composers. Thanks for considering. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Hello. I have a picture I would like to nominate for "picture of the day" in July 2007. I have two questions, A) Am I allowed to put on on, since I am not an admin, and B) If not could you do it?

God Bless,

Politics rule 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not already a Featured Picture, it will have to be nominated first (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates). I'm afraid that even if it were to gain Featured status, it wouldn't be able to scheduled for July 2007 because there's a queue of other pictures waiting (currently standing at 96 images -- the images are selected in FIFO order). To give you an idea of the wait, the POTD for June 10 was promoted on February 8, so it would be about four months after it got Featured status before its time to appear on POTD. Regards, howcheng {chat} 00:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this FIFO queue? How/where do you nominate for picture of the day? Or is all featured pictures added to the list? Stefan 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The queue is found in reverse order at Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. To nominate a picture for Featured status, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cyclorama

I didn't download it. As I said in the image file, I copied it from the archives: I went to the park and copied it from the original. The park has 10s of 1,000s of documents that are not online. Hal Jespersen 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. It was not obvious from the description. If you have the chance, perhaps you can add a call number (if it has one) or some way that somebody else could verify the information if they really wanted to. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FormerFeaturedPicture

Hello, can you, pleace tell me who decides that the picture is no longer meets the standarts to be a featured picture and becomes a Former Featured Picture.Thanks.--Mbz1 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

If you feel a Featured Picture no longer is up to standards, you can nominate it for delisting at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nomination for delisting (you'll find instructions there). Regards, howcheng {chat} 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg Navy image

Thanks for telling me that Howcheng; as I'm sure you have now been able to guess, my area of expertise is not exactly images, and I am now much ore cautious about uploading them. It appears, however, that my image qualifies the policies, but I have imply uploaded it on the wrong project. I thought of it, but opted instead to upload it here to be safe. However, I hope to be able to use the tag you mentioned when I can. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kawabata Ryushi.jpg

Please clarify why you feel that this image may be in violation of Fair Use policy guidelines. I believe that an adequate Fair use rationale was given, and that it is in compliance with all "non-free" guidelines. If you have any specific concerns, I would be happy to address. --MChew 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the reason on the image description page. In your rationale, you claimed this is a historically significant photo. My question was, how is it historically significant (as compared to other existing photos of Kawabata)? howcheng {chat} 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thanks for the notice. I have one question, though. What makes you think that the picture of Pen-Ek Ratanaruang is more appropriate on Main Page than that of the only extant Sassanid fortress? --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what it was? In your hook, you had written, "in connection with the 7th-century Turkic conquest of Aghvania (pictured)" and I didn't see how the fortress depicted the conquest. It didn't seem congruous with the text, so that's why I went with a different picture. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although I still think that image was more encyclopaedic. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

I'm sorry. I thought that it only needed to be featured image in the Wikimedia Commons. I'm sorry again. João Felipe C.S 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture WTC

Well the pictures (DONT HAVE TO) be there. But it would let the reader know what they are reading about. For example:

"In Madonna's 1998 hit, Ray of Light, The Twin Towers where shown, breifely, 4 times in the Koyaanisqatsi inspired music video, two from street level and two aerial dusk shots."

I'm sure the reader would like to see a picture of that. It would be much more intresting to see images that go along with the subject they are reading.

Now if I'm allowed to put the pics up (which I still havent gotten a firm YES or NO awnser) I wouldnt clutter up the page, just show 3 or 4 per sighting, for example TV, Music Videos, Cartoons, and those couple of images would only be the most prominent one. Not every sighting would have a picture.

The pictures, yes, would decorate the page, but also show the reader the sighting, while they read about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pag293 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Without knowing the exact circumstances of each image, I can't give you a firm yes or no answer. At this point, you are the person most qualified to judge. What you need to do is go through the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Non-free images that you want to include in an article have to meet all ten of them in order for them to OK. The hardest one to meet is usually #8, which requires that the image increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. If the reader can understand the text without the image, then it's not necessary to the article and can't be used. Some good examples are the baseball card in Billy Ripken, the Pepsi ad in Edward F. Boyd, and the magazine cover in Demi Moore. Just "looking nice" is not acceptable. Hope that helps. howcheng {chat} 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Philippoteaux painting Gettysburg Cyclorama.jpg

"Do you see a link to a page that has this image? No? Then there's STILL NO SOURCE" There is no need to yell. Nor is there a need for all images to have a link. It clearly specifies its source, and the license is acceptable. Perhaps you should check your contributions to make sure you didn't mis-tag any other images in addition to this one? In any case, yelling and sarcasm will not help build an encyclopedia, nor will deleting valid images. Bushytails 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my message to you on your talk page was quite civil. And at the time, the source description was hardly clear like it is now. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broke

Hi, quickimgdelete is broke for me. I click on an item and it opens up the tabs as needed but just leaves it at the edit screens and doesn't do anything. I thought it might have been a recent change to my monobook so I undid that but still the same thing. I've tried IFD, ORFUD and redundant and all the same thing. I'm hoping it's just me but I dunno what else to do. Any ideas? MECU≈talk 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I tried to be smart and not have the toolbox links when you were viewing history or editing or a different action, but I ended up disabling the entire script on those pages. Ha. Fixed now. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Possibly Unfree Images is still broke - it opens the page, but does not add any text or an edit summary. Thanks--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass your browser's cache (Ctrl-F5 for IE, Ctrl-Shift-R for Firefox) and it should be happy. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore?

You removed two images from Culture in North Omaha, Nebraska under the premise of #8. The usage of those images in this article does not meet the criteria for deletion because they both significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article. Please note that this article is not a list, gallery, or navigational element. Please consider restoring the images. – Freechild (BoomCha) 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does having the image of an album cover in an article, which is not even about the album or the artist and where the album cover is not even discussed, help the reader understand the topic better? Especially considering the sentence being illustrated is, "Big Joe Williams' 1953 minor hit 'Omaha Blues' is about a woman in the city." The album cover is not necessary for the reader to understand this. Frankly, the image is not even being used properly in Big Joe Williams. Album covers need to serve as identification for the albums themselves, and the article should have some sort of discussion about the album as well and preferably even the cover (see the lead section of My Aim Is True for an example). howcheng {chat} 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response - it helps me understand that issue further. Perhaps you could illuminate me a little bit about your disqualification of this same article for consideration for DYK? The article was created on 6/6. When I listed it on 6/10 it was four days old. I don't understand your disqualification - could you explain? I thought articles had to be under 6 days old? Thanks. – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a technicality. To appear on DYK, articles need to have been created or significantly expanded within the last 5 days. Today is 6/13, so you need to have started on 6/8 or later. The article you nominated was Culture in Omaha, Nebraska (not North Omaha), which you started on 6/5. However, you listed this in the "Articles created on June 9" section, so by now it's too late unfortunately. As a side note, the new images you put in (Image:Johnbeasley.JPG and Image:LuigiWaitesPlaysVibraphone.jpg) have problems too. The first one is a screencap of an episode and you're not discussing this specific scene in your article, so it can't be there. The second one happens to not be a work of the US government and is therefore not public domain, even though the original uploader found it on a US gov't web site. Sorry, but keep trying. howcheng {chat} 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoS bashing

Hi. When are you going to knock off the Church of Scientology bashing on the DYK? There are about 270 articles related to Scientology on Wikipedia out of how many total articles? How come you (as in YOU, Howcheng) are giving such undue weight to Scientology-bashing. Smee I understand because I understand her POV-pushing. What is YOUR story? --Justanother 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting on AN/I about this. --Justanother 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments on WP:ANI about this troublesome accusation to yourself and myself, by Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). As helpfully stated by User:W.marsh and User:Hit bull, win steak - they both seem to have clarified my efforts in tediously sourcing newly created article and/or expanded articles to multiple referenced citations in reputable secondary sources. This seems to be a frivolous, disruptive use of WP:ANI. Smee 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I will not post again to WP:ANI, per a previous agreement that I had had with Bishonen (talk · contribs), that Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is actually violating right now. However, it is useful to point out to you, and hopefully to others as well, again, that every single one of those DYKs is factually sourced to multiple reputable secondary sourced citations, and that not all of them were nominated/created/expanded by myself - some were - some were not. However, you probably already know all that. Smee 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Smee, please do not pretend to misunderstand our agreement, an agreement that I, more than anyone have been adhering to. I did not take you to AN/I. You can only nominate and I do not fault you for that. --Justanother 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this discussion at AN/I please. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for taking up your talk page space. Smee 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Nara light my fire.jpg

You voiced an opinion on this image at IFD, but maybe were not fully aware of the situation. The image was orphaned by me, as I took it down thinking it might be copyvio (as my comment directly prior to your's describes). I went ahead and de-oophaned the image, as that seems to have created some confusion. The question is really whether this image is copyvio, or perhaps useable as fair use. Kind of confusing, which suggests maybe I should have just left it on the page until this is sorted out. Just wanted to let you know so you are not voting on an incorrect assumption. thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Just a small token of appreciation.

Moved to user page.

And thanks form me too. You're doing a great job, if that needed to be said and haven't done anything wrong. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad that you both have received Personal Attacks in part due to articles that I have helped to expand with referenced citations. But I also feel that frivolous disruptive reports of this nature should not go unnoticed... Smee 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I publicly apologized to both of them. My upset was based on a misunderstanding on my part. --Justanother 03:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, people. Happy editing! howcheng {chat} 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! And congrats on the barnstar - you deserve it for all the hard work you put into this project. Smee 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Ade Gardner.JPG

Img fine with administrators previously. Rationale given. Please would you look into the reason for that please. Many thanks for your attention to this matter Londo06 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the image description page, it sounds like you obtained permission for your personal use and to use on Wikipedia only. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. For pictures of public, living people like this, the image needs to be released so that anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial ones. The copyright holder has three options:

Release to the public domain, meaning no credit or anything is required.
Release under the GNU Free Documentation License, which is the same license that covers Wikipedia text.
Release under a free Creative Commons License, either Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike.

Get an email stating that they are willing to do this and forward it to the people at OTRS (see that page for instructions). Regards, howcheng {chat} 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will look to do that shortly.Londo06 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, in regards to your recent self-nominations at T:TDYK, please be sure to read the rules at Wikipedia:Did you know before you nominate any more articles. In short, many of your nominations do not meet the minimum expansion requirements and it would save us a lot of time if you did not submit those that do not qualify, such as Thomasites and Lorenzo Ruiz. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your message. Thank you for the reminder. Will sure do (just new in DYK nominations)? And thank you for picking United Nations Interpretation Service on June 14, 2007. Improvement will come by practice and participation. Proud to be a Wikipedian. Regards.Dragonbite 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js

Hi. please see this page. Thank you--OsamaK 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination on Frederick Rotimi Williams. Alexlovesme (UTC)

North Carolina State Capitol

The link shows that the page is linked to an NPS site link. View North Carolina State Capitol for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staplegunther (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

On the NPS page, it gives credit for the photo to the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, which means it's not a work of the US government after all. I've sent this image to WP:PUI. howcheng {chat} 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina State Capitol is clearly on a U.S. govenrment page. It is sourced, linked, and verified. If you want to be a picture Nazi go for it, but give us users some credit for trying. -staplegunther

Yes, the image is on a US government page, but it was not created by the US government. Sorry, and yes I am picture Nazi. It comes with being an administrator. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Careful, Howcheng! Conquest of Hispania refers to the Roman Republic's conquest of Spain, not the invasion of the Visigothic Kingdom under Justinian's Byzantine Empire 500 years later! Slac speak up! 02:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Twasn't me who put that text in there. See this edit for the mistaken link. howcheng {chat} 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sorry, I probably sound petty. Slac speak up! 07:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Noms

Did you know? was updated. On 15 June, 2007, facts from the articles Pietro Cardinal Boetto, and Al-Khazini, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani ^talk 12:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the cut and paste is quicker for me the other way, and I never know when I'm going to be cut o... Yomangani ^talk 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 15 June, 2007, a fact from the article Auchenipterichthys, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 15 June, 2007, facts from the articles Fri (yacht), and Frederick Rotimi Williams, which you recently nominated, were featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 16 June, 2007, facts from the articles USS Grebe (AM-43), and Estonia-Swedes, which you recently nominated, were featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 04:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MainPage images

I will not be able to protect the TFA or POTD images on June 18 (they haven't been chosen yet). Just thought I would notify you on the odd chance this isn't taken care of by someone else. Thanks.--Pharos 06:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a bit of a rush and I won't be able to do the protections today again. Sorry to bother you again.--Pharos 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi. So did the non-bashing Scientology article not find its way to the front page? User:Slightlyright put a lot of effort into that article. --Justanother 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but Smee made a very good point that the article was not sourced to secondary sources (I hadn't read the article when I made my copyedit suggestion). The only references you provided were to Hubbard's books, which are primary sources (since he defined the term). This is a common path to disqualification for many articles. Keep trying, though. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like Carabinieri was willing to overlook that, since it got put on the Main Page in this update. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 1, Diff 2, edit-warring on the Next Update page by Justanother (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu), and highly-inappropriate edit summary usage like: "knock it the fuck off" -- I am curious as to what you think about this behaviour? Smee 06:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- At this point, I'll decline to do anything. He's pretty new to DYK and hopefully Yomangani's comments will put an end to that type of action. howcheng {chat} 06:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. And the edit summary? Smee 06:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - I left him a note. howcheng {chat} 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay. Please also note that this is not new behaviour for this user, 16:12, 4 March 2007. Smee 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New FP nom

I have been continuing to take pics with my point and shoot digital. I am wondering if any of the first 11 photos at User:TonyTheTiger#Selected_Photo_Contributions are worthy. I am not sure which ones would have the best shot, but I am leaning toward the Image:20070513 Pumping Station.JPG, Image:20070601 Victory Monument (2).JPG and Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG. Which do you think are my best? Maybe some day I will get a real camera. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20070221 Trump Chicago at Night.JPG is the closest, but I still don't think it would make it. Maybe with a little perspective correction, it might have a chance. Image:20070616 Crown Fountain (5).JPG needs a different angle so that the top of the rear building doesn't show, and a tighter crop, but that one actually may not be a free image because the central piece is the fountain, which is likely a copyrighted work of art. Just so you know, it's not really the camera that makes the picture, it's the composition. The technology helps (especially in terms of noise) but it's the photographer's eye that's the most important in making a quality image. Hope that helps. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What commentary do you have on Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG. For WP this is a rare photo where you can actually see the pitcher's grip on a baseball during delivery. Look you can see this is what I think they call a four seamer. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out fastball and look at the zoom of this image. This shot is something special, IMO. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good capture, but honestly it doesn't really illustrate fastball that well. A video would be the best so that you can see the speed. For illustrating pitcher I like the composition of Image:Baseball pitch delivery.jpg a lot better too (it gives you more context). howcheng {chat} 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Should Crown Fountain be cropped so closely that Aon Center (Chicago) is not visible or just to eliminate Two Prudential Plaza (and) One Prudential Plaza. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of cropping it, I think it requires a reshoot so that the triangle top of that building isn't visible (try a different angle). You may also need to try perspective correction, either via software or using a tripod/monopod (put the camera on it and lift it straight up, taking the picture with the timer). Not that I mind helping you out with this, but Commons:Photography critiques may be a better bet so you get a wider range of opinions. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use review

Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Hopefully we can fill Wikipedia with free images instead, such as this image of a river in Egypt. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your patience is amazing. I hope you never lose it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it takes a lot of effort on my part to resist from just deleting the image outright. :) howcheng {chat} 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: The Pontifical Academy of Theology

Thank you so much. --Poeticbent talk 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist Ahoy

Adding text "Deletionist Ahoy" to be used in later bot collection of usernames for re-education after Jimbo's lawsuit paranoia and re-usability obsession have subsided and Wikipedia can go back to being a decently illustrated compendium. -- JDG 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Howcheng, the real breach of civility is your coming to my user page and shouting "Cease and Desist!" as if you're some kind of police storm trooper, and also in censoring my opinion by reverting your Talk page. If there was anything uncivil in my edit it was the use of the word paranoia in connection with Jimbo Wales, but even that is very light and I doubt the man himself would be offended at all, and it was not directed at you. To refer to you as a Deletionist is not uncivil, as it is accurate and is a descriptive term in growing use among many long-time respected editors (among whom I am not too modest to include myself, from circa November `02). To mark you for re-education is no more insulting than your telling scores of users that they have not understood Wikipedia policy on use of images. I request that you restore my edit and that you resolve to squarely face the consequences of your many deletions instead of attempting to hush it up through threats and reversions. JDG 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I come to your talk page "shouting" or threatening? I think not. If you want me to restore your comment, I expect the same courtesy from you. You want to create a list of users who will be in need of "re-education"? Fine, do it on your own computer, off-line. Coming around to people's talk pages and posting that message is a sure-fire way to raise bad blood. We may disagree on the best way of establishing a free encyclopedia, but don't think for a moment that that isn't my goal here. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your reversion, I've done the same here. howcheng {chat} 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Cease and Desist" is actually a staple of aggressive lawyers going after people who are crossing their clients, but in the environment of Wikipedia, especially coming from an admin to a non-admin, it has the tone of a shout from a law enforcement officer to an unarmed civilian. I reverted your comment on my Talk in a little tit-for-tat snit, but then I remembered I never, ever, revert anything on non-encyc pages, so I reverted the revert. One of the many vital functions of Talk pages is the "blowing off steam" function and, aside from the lowest sort of profanity-laced invective, emotional wording should not be discouraged by beating people with the WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT sticks as punishment for being human...The moral of the story is: if "the people" (in this case, general editors) are upset over a policy, don't be browbeating them when they speak out against it in non-encyc pages. A guy can't give a heartfelt opinion around here anymore without getting slapped with 8 or 9 "policy violations" right off the bat. ps - I appreciate your restoring my edit. It really isn't hurting anyone. -- JDG 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my exactly intent -- to tell you firmly to stop doing that -- so I'm glad that my tone came through. One of the nice things about communicating via talk pages and whatnot is the ability to restrain oneself and to take time to consider one's words carefully, even when in an emotional state. Perhaps you should make liberal use of the preview button in the future when you are agitated to give yourself more time to think about what it is you're posting. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another request

Greetings again. I was processing rfu images, and I'm stumped regarding Image:Jp01.jpg. Note that it's used in two different articles, for two different purposes, and the image talk page is heated. Could you process this one for me? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whipped slave promoted to FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Stefan 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Yeah, I was wondering how we keep track of that. Where should the info be retained? On the T:DYK/N page? Mango juice^talk 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes in the T:DYK/N#Credits section. howcheng {chat} 17:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do from now on. I just also updated the T:DYK template; let me know if I did anything wrong. Mango juice^talk 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi, I'm tired of waiting for feedback on a FP? proposal and figured I'd take the mountain to Mohammed. I get the impression that people are happy to let me ride roughshod over the criteria and I've already made several bold changes there, more on a "silence equals consent" basis than anything else. However I'm a little less confident about merging these three criteria simply because I may be overlooking something. I've spent a good deal of time raking over existing image use policy for reasons to keep these separate and can't find any. Would you do me a favour and let me know what you think? It always seemed crazy to me that the criteria need ever cover more than six or seven key areas, so this merge would be more-or-less job done. Thanks. mikaul^talk 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shivappa Nayaka

Sir, I have downplayed many words and sentences. Please see if its ok and nominate to DYK.Dineshkannambadi 23:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FranciscoSionilJoseNCCAgov.jpg.jpg

So what should the proper tag with this (if it is not deleted)? I am not going to contest if image should be deleted by more experienced wikipedians. What I want is to just improve the article on F. Sionil Jose. This is all "labyrinthine" to me, these images incorporation to articles.Dragonbite 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of my reply on the image's talk page:
- "Ok. Got ya very well. Learning the ropes. Thanks for all your input. Well, I let the panel decide. I'll probably be able to find a free image. Again, many thanks. Since I am part of Wikipedia, I must adhere to the policies. I'll be learning from the trials and errors.Dragonbite 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:FranciscoSionilJoseNCCAgov.jpg.jpg"Dragonbite 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source in Pucci Dellanno

thanks, I have added the source, hope it is ok now. The photo was taken by me a few years ago by the way, and I have seen it now on Pucci's myspace page, which is not private.

Thom.

Award for you

Moved to user page

Image:CharlesNetter.jpg

Thank you for using Charles Netter at DYK.

Could the image, now orphaned, be used in the Mikveh Israel article? The stamp commemorates the centennial of the Mikveh Israel, and using it there will satisfy the rule of not using stamps to illustrate the subject depicted on the stamp.

--Derwig 07:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because in order to use the image, there would have to be some discussion of the stamp such that readers would need to see the stamp in order to understand the text. Simply having, "Charles Netter was honored with a stamp" isn't good enough. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival

Hi HowCheng! Thanks again and again for your contribution. Happy DYKeditibng! CeeGee 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request

Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Link to the page please? howcheng {chat} 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Script change

Now that "replceable fair use" of quickimgdelete.js uses rfu2, the edit summary ("will be deleted in seven days") is a bit out of date. Could you change it? hbdragon88 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Political Shirley Temple.jpg

I closed the IFD on Image:Political Shirley Temple.jpg as a keep, pending a response from NASA about the actual source of the image. This is the response I got:

“

Though this photo was posted years ago, I am fairly certain that it was not taken by anyone at this site, therefore your suspicion may be a good one. The photo was given to our personnel by Ms. Black during our Female Frontiers project for use on our website. I do not have any further information on its source.

Sorry, (name redacted)

”

So there are several annoying implications here and it's a road that I really don't want to go down. We've been taking it as gospel that anything on a NASA site that doesn't say otherwise is PD. I don't really like going down the road where this is going to lead.

At any rate, as far as this goes, since it is most certainly not PD, the question is whether we can use it as fair use. We now have an actual source for it so that isn't an issue. My inclination is to say no, since it is purely decorative. But I think it ought to be re-IFD'd since there is new information that has come to light. Any thoughts? --BigDT 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, re-IFD sounds like the right choice. You should do the nominating because you have the email correspondence. howcheng {chat} 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dropkick.jpg

I wanted to drop a note on a deletion of yours that I undid so that my actions do not come across in any way as a wheel war. Two admins, User:Quadell and I, had previously reviewed the image and found it to be fair use. If you feel that my actions are errant, I am more than happy to discuss this further. Anyhow, cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but even though this one fulfills WP:NFCC item 1, it's a clear violation of items 2 and 8. Our use of this image directly competes in the marketplace with the Associated Press. We can't just take copyrighted images and put them on our site and call it "fair use" -- it needs to fulfill all ten items of the NFCC. But that's fine, I'll just renominate it. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on 8, but you are dead right about 2. My apologies. Delete away. If there ever is a next time (hopefull not, but who knows? we both could be on here for 50 years + :) ), pop by my talk page and beat me with a logic stick before going to XfD and I'll probably go along. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

If you're there, can you post the next update, which is rather overdue? It has six articles, but the On this Day today and tomorrow are both short, so it looks okay. Rigadoun (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15 hours! Wow, I wonder where everyone was this morning. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it again? I put seven articles in the Next Update, and we're at seven hours. Rigadoun (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama

This is the second time I've seen you incorrectly state what freedom of panorama is in a deletion discussion, so I am going to copy verbatim my response to you from here: "Actually you are incorrect. FOP allows taking derivative pictures of copyrighted works. Please see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama (which I must admit I co-wrote with an admin from Commons). There is no requirement it be only a small portion of the work. What you are thinking of is called "de minimis" use of the copyrighted work. See de minimis. However in this case, Australian FOP clearly doesn't apply." I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm merely trying to explain to you a concept which is foreign to most people in the United States. -N 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I am also a Commons admin and am pretty familiar with FOP. De minimis refers to the amount of usage of copyrighted material in relation to the entire copyrighted work. For example, a still frame from a TV show is de minimis because at 24 fps, it's a tiny portion of the entire show. A single-sentence quotation of a copyrighted book is de minimis. Freedom of panorama is for example, when you take a picture of Times Square you will include a lot of advertising in the scene, but because each individual advertisement is only a small portion of the scene (and the subject of the photo is Times Square, not the specific advertisement), then freedom of panorama applies. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RabbiGoldberger.jpg

Is there any way I can undelete that image? It is needed for an article. Tzadik 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but you need to change the licensing to a free content license. See WP:ICT#For image creators. We do not accept Wikipedia-only licensing. howcheng {chat} 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tzadik 14:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture promotion

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Anschlusstears.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I hereby award you this purple star for withstanding personal attacks and speculative accusations levied at you on IFD. You are also commended for keeping your cool -- most of the time. :-)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to spoil the self-serving, self-referencing celebration of having deleted my hard work and made knolwdege less accessible to the reader, but could you articulate how "unnecessary use of non-free images" applies in this case? El_C 21:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did I say it on the IFD page? Use these documents as sources for the articles. Images of the documents are completely unnecessary. Look at WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #11. This is the exact same case. howcheng {chat} 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is not a newspaper article, it is a recently declassified military document. El_C 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the example is use of non-free images of text is unacceptable. Please don't try to create a loophole that goes against the spirit of the rule -- that's wikilawyering. howcheng {chat} 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate you not speculating what the spirit of a rule (especially one which I just learned about today) means to me. El_C 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, notice how I didn't use a template to communicate with you. (note for further reference for ongoing discussions). Thanks. El_C 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a script to automate image deletions. Placing the notification on the uploader's talk page is done automatically (and besides, it's required IFD procedure). howcheng {chat} 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not excuse it as a particularly impolite and aggressive, if not outright vengeful, act. El_C 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading far too much into this and frankly not AingGF. Is it so incomprehensible to you that the image might not qualify for use under the image policy? howcheng {chat} 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that difficult for you to write down "good faith" or are you trying to provoke me. If it's the latter, say nothing. El_C 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using shorthand. I tend to speak in abbreviations in real life too. howcheng {chat} 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, I find it difficult to swallow that image editors made our convoluted fairuse criteria just bureaucratic enough so that the image, if you extrapolate rule number 11 or 8, or whatever (only the image-lawyers seem to be able to follow this sort of discourse), it now fails. El_C 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of non-free images has stepped up within the last few months, spurred on by the Foundation's licensing policy resolution. A critical eye is being turned on all non-free image, but there are so many of them and not that many image policy police that it just takes time to weed them all out. howcheng {chat} 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two images are fine. Nobody would flinch if they were left alone. But there is a bureaucratic effort for its own sake, and as hollow as it may be, it is of an extraordinary powerful momentum. El_C 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bureaucratic busy-work. The overall goal is to reduce the number of non-free images to those that really truly necessary. Featured articles like Yom Kippur War should be held to the highest standard. Maybe I need to be participating at WP:FAR or something... howcheng {chat} 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been involved in FA activity, so that is not pertinent. The value of these documents supercedes questionable fairuse criteria extrapolations, which is part of this bureaucratic effort of which I speak of, the overall idealized goal itself notwithstanding. El_C 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I keep saying that the documents should be used as sources for the articles; that's how they can best serve their value. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what, link to the ones of the Hebrew Wikipedia with the disclaimer: due to copyrights paranoia and questionable fairuse criteria extrapolation propogated by a tiny minority, you will have to view the image/s on the Hebrew Wiki? I'd be willing to accept it as a less-than-fair (use, and otherwise) compromise"! Thanks. El_C 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No link necessary. I mean, you don't link to sources that are not online, right? Or since these were scanned from a book, you could do something like, <ref>Aman Research Department's report of October 5, 1973, as published in Ronen Bergman and Gil Meltzer's ''Yom Kippur War, Real Time: The Updated Edition'' (translation by [[User:El C|]]).</ref> howcheng {chat} 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point was showing to the reader these dramatic documents and having the translations within the image page, rather than crowed the article itself. Since the fair use grounds for deleting them are barely comprehensible (to use charitable language), I still fail to see a problem in simply leaving them un-molsted. El_C 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I understand your point, but these really are primary sources. If they were PD, Wikisource would be the place to put them, but they're not, so that's out. I'm sure you know that primary sources don't belong here. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, I don't know that at all, and I have no clue as to why I should as it makes no sense. El_C 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, item 3, which points the reader to Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, which ha been around a looooong time. howcheng {chat} 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand these guideline/policy very well if you apply notions of a "repository," etc., to these key documents. El_C 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. "Repository" refers to Wikipedia being a host for the documents. "Original historical documents" (which these are) do not belong here. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I know what you meant, but I feel you are truly grasping at straws at this point if you are to apply such a loose letter-of-the-law approach to seeing my translaions (which by now I can only conclude you truly hate!) deleted for all time. El_C 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how about those Cincinnati Reds, huh? They sure are on a losing streak! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Howcheng. I didn't mean for this award to send more fire your way. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, what a surprise... El_C 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited advice

Sometimes the best response is no response at all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not respond to that if I was you. And after all, what are you losing? It's the encyclopedia's loss. El_C 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Thanks for the notification about POTD selection. I'll look into the caption. --MattWright (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award you the The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your work on defending the correct use of the fair use policy Bleh999 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview much? How predictable, the image-editors awarding themsleves, again. Sorry, don't mean to spoil the fun (at my expense?), again. El_C 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're only adding to the fun! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try adhering to your advise, you know about sarcasm and how sometimes the best response is no response at all... El_C 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Jack Sarfatti

Why did you delete the picture of Jack Sarfatti on his web page?

Wrong person. 20:11, 26 May 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:JackSarfatti1.jpg" (could be replaced easily) (Restore) I believe the argument was that an alternative could be found (whether "easily" is subject to debate, I suppose). Hope this helps. El_C 05:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your comment. :-) User:SamuelJohnson714

Did Sarfatti object to Wiki using those images of him? SamuelJohnson714 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zviadauri.jpg

I re-forwarded the email to [email protected]. Is that correct? Thanks, SosoMK 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's perfect. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images in La Femme Nikita (TV series)

Please see:

Please see updated discussion pages at those images pertaining to La Femme Nikita (TV series): previous decision concerning the use of all those DVD covers from the packages of the DVD box sets copyrighted by Warner Bros. needs to be revisited, in view of material posted more recently in the discussion pages and the notices at User talk:Tardis pertaining to the images (cover art, screen captures from copyrighted merchandise). Fair use rationales still under dispute for each of those images (all copyright-protected cover art). See 28 June 2007 and scroll to Article listing as well. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For an example of all the discussion pages re: those DVD cover art images and screen captures made from the DVD and/or on-air broadcast television episode programs (contained in them), see Image talk:NikitaS1DVD.jpg. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub pages and WP:PUI

Howcheng, have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Change format of page listings? There is support for a new sub page system (akin to IFD or WP:Copyright problems). Would you be able to update your JavaScript to start this, perhaps to begin at 0:00 UTC (of whatever day)? Thank you very much; your JavaScript is much appreciated. --Iamunknown 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be only support (though it's only been a day) for the change to PUI, what day would be a good change for you to implement this into the script? I think I can work on the changes early next week to get it rolling. It shouldn't be too hard, but I'd like to make sure we get the change to the PUI and the script on the same day at least to try and minimize disruption. I'm fine with the naming convention too. I'm glad I asked first so I could get feedback like that. MECU≈talk 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be really easy for me to do this, since it's mostly already done for IFD and copyvios. You know what, I'll get it done in my dev version so that when PUI is ready, I'll just replace the current production version. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, flip the switch, I started converting today and will sort out the mess later. I asked User:Schutz to run their bot on WP:PUI like they do for WP:CV since it's all the identical work. MECU≈talk 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US Army OF11.gif

User:Yomar has uploaded the image again... Image:US Army OF11.gif and reinserted it in the articles: Ranks of the People's Liberation Army & General of the Armies. I put a {db-repost} tag on the image. --noclador 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and uploaded it once more! it was deleted and immediatley uploaded anew by him! Ban him for 48h? I think: yes! --noclador 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started with a 24 hour block. The length of time will escalate if he persists in his behavior. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also suspect him to be the creator of the following images: Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png, Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png and Image:50px-IT-Army-OF10.GIF. They are "supposedly" the rank insignia of a Italian Army 5-star general. Something that hasn't existed since World War 2 and than the insignia was something completely different. The one he uploaded combines a colonel and a full general rank insignia- something completely fabricated and ludicrous! The images were uploaded by a user:Horemsa and now changing IP addresses are trying to push this fake stuff into the article about the Italian Army Ranks. Not just this pattern is the same as with User:Yomar, but the IP addresses that are being used vandalize the Ranks of the People's Liberation Army article AND the Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy AND the Italian Army Ranks article. Therefore is suspect that user:Horemsa is a socketpup of User:Yomar. And I suspect also that User:Meirchaims is another one: see here for the reason And here you can see the IP that vandalize the Chinese and Italian Army Ranks articles: first example, second example and a third example. Any chance we can stop this annoyance? Thanks, --noclador 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can post a request for checkuser to see if the usernames are the same as the IPs and if so, we can have the socks indef-blocked if they're being used to evade other blocks. I don't think it's "vandalism" per se; it seems to be a good faith attempt to improve the articles, it's just that he's using original research. Keep nominating the images for deletion at the very least. howcheng {chat} 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Italian Army Ranks. this is definitely not original research. I was a member of the Italian Armed Forces for 4 years and have never seen/heard of the rank he is pushing into the article. It is a complete fabrication and I every major editor to the Italian Army articles (me, User:Flanker, user:Empar) is angered by this behaviour. --noclador 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh he has reuploaded the image: Image:US Army OF 11.gif and created a socketpup to do so: User:Yormar! --noclador 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sock has been indef-blocked. Keep reporting them as you find them. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will. --noclador 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: User:Iormar and Image:US Army OF 11.gif --noclador 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yomar, User:Iormar and User:Yormar are all suspected socketpups of the worst wikipedia vandal Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. --noclador 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update DYK

Would you care to update the DYK again? I posted things to Next Update a few hours ago, hoping someone would notice, but we're up to 8 hours now. Rigadoun (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use reduce

I did a fair use reduce on this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FFI-2.png can you delete the old revision Bleh999 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Hi, I saw you also worked on WP:PUI. Could you perhaps have a look at the upload's of user User:LukaP I am half in mind of deleting (almost) all his pictures. :) But before (if) I do that I thought I'd check with someone else. Examples are Image:T2-3.jpg, first tagged as fair use, after I tagged it as replaceble it changed to Public Domain, a lot of images I listed on WP:PUI (June 30) and a bunch more in his contributions. See also his talk page and archive which is full of image warnings. Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg

I'm a bit concerned about the license for this POTD. The sources no longer work. Are you active with POTD? If so, can you advise on what to do here? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about this one. Commons:User:FlickrreviewR (a bot) has verified the image, so even though it's been removed from Flickr, we know it's good. But thanks for double checking on it. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, I have added a new article to be considered for DYK about a journalist Selvarajah Rajivarnam. Thanks Taprobanus 14:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Generals Rabin Dayan Narkis Jerusalem 1967.jpg

Despite Abu Badali's dismissal of it, the image itself is indeed notable (iconic even) in Israel. I am not saying it should be undeleted just yet though, but could you tell me on which pages it was used? Thanks, nadav (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bunch of them, certainly far too many for a non-free image (and none of the pages had any commentary on the image whatsoever). You'll have to scour my contributions to confirm, but I believe it was in Yom Kippur War, Military history of Israel, History of the Israel Defense Forces, Yitzhak Rabin, Moshe Dayan, and Uzi Narkiss. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was non-notable based on what I read on the image description page and on the articles it was used in. I.e., not a line about the image. If this image is notable, it can be used. But it should only be used in a sourced discussion about it's notoriety and influence, and not to illustrate articles related to the event depicted on the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1967 image

Please don't speedy the image yet. I think I provided three sources to back up the claim that the image is an iconic photo on the image page. I am certain that a wikipedia article on this image would pass notability guidelines. GabrielF 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already speedied it. I don't doubt that the image is iconic in Israel, but it's not being used in the articles in a way that describes its iconicness (?). Until that happens, we can't be using the image here. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, luckilly, I hadn't yet closed the tabs.

"The famous photo of Narkiss striding into the Old City through the Lions' Gate with Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin on June 7, 1967, is one of those that has memorialized this chapter."[2]
"Some images of the war have been seared into our collective memory: Rabbi Goren blowing the shofar at the Kotel; Moshe Dayan, Yizhak Rabin and Uzi Narkiss entering the Old City with the Lion's Gate behind them."[3]
""I had been through the whole city the day before, I had walked in behind Dayan, Narkiss and Rabin, the famous picture. I was in the line behind them - the first line certainly belonged to the army -"[4] (this is Teddy Kollek, longtime mayor of Jerusalem)

I am sure I could find much more pretty quickly. GabrielF 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that this doesn't address your response - I wrote it while you were responding. 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, write the article, or write up the section in a relevant article and I'll be happy to restore it. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

I guess I'm a little bit confused. According to Template:Non-free historic image "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic Image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who took the Image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this Image to illustrate the event in question..." Further, I don't understand how images cannot be used to illustrate articles about the events the images depict when photos of newspaper front pages can be used for that purpose: "This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the newspaper or the individual contributors who worked on the articles or images depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question..." from Template:Non-free newspaper image. It is worth nothing that September 11, 2001 attacks contains both a fair use image [5] and a front page: [6]. Am I misunderstanding something or are we not interpreting fair use consistently?

I also have to wonder whether our interpretation is overly strict. I'm not a lawyer but do have some familiarity with fair use. Take for example Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Limited, Dorling Kindersley Publishing, and RR Donnelley & Sons Company (pdf), where the Second Circuit appeals court ruled that the use of small versions of copyright concert posters to illustrate the career of the Grateful Dead in a coffee table book qualified under fair use. The court repeatedly says that by combining the images (in reduced size) with information about the career of the Dead, the photos served "a purpose separate and distinct from the original artistic and promotional purpose for which the images were created"

“

In sum, because

DK’s use of the disputed images is transformative both when accompanied by referencing commentary and when standing alone, we agree with the district court that DK was not required to discuss the artistic merits of the images to satisfy this first factor of fair use analysis.

”

I'd encourage you to read the court's (very lucid) opinion. Maybe you'll interpret it differently than I did, but it seems pretty clear to me that the courts are okay with small versions of photos used as a minor part of a new work (an encyclopedia article) with a purely educational purpose. GabrielF 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read BGE v. DK, and you're right in that the photos served "a purpose separate and distinct from the original artistic and promotional purpose for which the images were created". However, in many of our cases, such as the Rabin-Dayan-Narkiss image, our purpose in using the image is the same as the original: to illustrate the events that are happening in the photo. You will undoubtedly find many violations of the non-free content policy here on Wikipedia, because it's probably the least understood policy and yes, it is intentionally stricter than what U.S. laws allow because of Wikipedia's goal to be a free content encyclopedia. While non-free content is never going to be eliminated, we are striving to use it only where necessary, where the reader's understanding of the article would be compromised without its inclusion. And let's face it: There's a huge gray area and it's hard to draw the line at any point. Besides, editors like having images in their articles, so much so that they'll gloss over the perceived gobbledygook of the NFCC and just assume that it's good because they fail to really comprehend the subtleties involved. Hope that makes sense. I'll have to look into {{non-free historic image}} though. howcheng {chat} 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#July 1

This is our reply to your reply to the above context, also posted on that thread.

We are well aware of the stipulations. Most of our business is suplying high resolution versions of our images 400 dpi and above, a far higher quality that is rrequired by commercial users of our images, than what we are contributing to Wikipedia. There is a growing market in low res images for internet use, but we feel contributing a couple of hundred images to Wikipedia is not going to effect our bottom line. Bottom line, we aren't worried about it. As to the issue of commercial distribution, that falls into an entire other area outside of copyright law. The images may of course be used in an editorial context if attibution to source is made as per our condition. Commercial use is beyond our scope since images of well known personalitities for commercial products require in addtion to copyright permission a license which can only be issued by the heirs of the estates of such persons or their authorized representatives. In other words, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. That is beyond our ability or authority to do. As for derivative works, basically the same rules apply. They can use the images any way they see fit as long as they cite the source. At such low resolution as we are supplying, to be quite frank, their use is generally limited to the internet in editorial contexts such as this. One thing that does come to mind is, will we have to go through this every time we upload additional images? Or is there a way to avoid this in the future. There are a lot of articles in which we feel we could enhance the article by contributing images to them. --PersonalityPhotos 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notifications

Hey Howcheng, thanks for writing/editing the captions for the various POTD's. I checked them all and found nothing to complain. Keep up the good work. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg in Operation Wrath of God

User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at Talk:Operation_Wrath_of_God#Use_of_Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg_in_this_article so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the instructions on the page indicate that this template should not be subst'ed. The Evil Spartan 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of {{oldafdfull}}. See the "Usage" section of {{oldifdfull}}. I should know -- I created the template. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Well, the two should probably have the same instructions. It's even more compelling for images, as they can't be moved. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I remember that it used to be required to subst oldafdfull. Wonder when that got changed. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update DYK?

Would you care to update DYK? Someone filled up the Next Update a while ago, but we're at ten hours since last update. Rigadoun (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent IFD close?

I was surprised to see the unused Image:HallThruster_1.png kept, since all the previous raster images I nominated as obsolete with a SVG version were deleted. OK, quite a few of them were really crappy by comparison, but others were not. What, exactly, is the official policy on this? I know Commons is having a big debate on this right now, but that's a different animal. --Pekaje 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the vector version is clearly based on the raster version, I always keep the raster version so that it serves as a reference. If the vector version was produced independently, then I'll usually delete the raster. I guess other admins may operate differently. howcheng {chat} 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I suppose so. Personally, I just don't see much use of the raster version on Wikipedia, since it should never be used again (and the deleting admin has of course checked that it is an adequate replacement). As such it is orphaned, and should technically be moved to Commons. However, that doesn't make much sense in this case, as the vector version is already there. Maybe I should ask at the village pump instead. I certainly don't want to unnecessarily nominate images for deletion, if the consensus is that the raster originals should be kept. --Pekaje 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]