User talk:J Milburn/archive25

Removal of Aspinburgh

Dear sir/madam, as micro nations themselves tend to be small, I feel that the list should contain all of them. I posted a part for Aspinburgh and you deleted it, in good faith I am sure, but I would like to request that it be re-instated. Thank you, Russel Hidelspring, Rep. of Aspinburgh --Greenwoodlion (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean by a town newspaper or something similar to that?--Greenwoodlion (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. We were founded just today; official ceremony starts at 12 noon. The President asked me to put this up. I apologize for the inconvenience. I suppose we will have to wait until something like a newspaper comes along. Thank you for your help. Russell Hidelspring, Director of the Central News Agency, P.D.R. Aspinburgh --Greenwoodlion (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some NFCC galleries on stations stats

I've been working through this list of stations and have completed a review of 17% of the list. Of those, about 14% of them had logos in gallery form. The average number of logos per gallery is 3.5.

I've also found 15 articles where more than one logo is used in the infobox (example). I've also found some other fair use problems. For example, screenshots being used for identification purposes of on air personalities (example).

I've also found logos used in tables for identification purposes (only one so far).

I'm keeping track of all this at User:Hammersoft/list.

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just can you help me for how to reslove this issues.

Can you help me for how to resolve the issues you talked about A.h. king (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But is their any way that I can get the non-free images back on my user page, but in a "Wikipedia legal" way?A.h. king (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

About the plane pictures, currently I'm not knowing under which license to put them, if you can guide me a little on how to keep the pictures using the correct license.A.h. king (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I create free image of the same aircraft? And thanks for your help. A.h. king (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 9#File:PeterPan1.jpg

I've re-reviewed it, and I still think my close was correct. If I'm participating in that discussion, I probably !vote delete, but the fact is that the effective threshold around here for NFCC #8 is very low (see, for example, every article about an album) and "A photo of how this woman appeared when she played the part of a young boy - which is not at all obvious just from closing one's eyes and imagining - adds considerably to one's understanding of that role." qualifies as a legitimate argument in that context. If consensus is to have any meaning, I can't, in closing an FFD discussion, just say "Okay, you're making arguments consistent with prevailing practice on the implementation of NFCC #8, but since prevailing practice is wrong, I'm going to go ahead and disregard the majority of views in this FFD." As always, I will take no offense if you decide to bring this to WP:DRV. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's an admin's job to weigh arguments, but consensus can't just mean "closing admin decides who's right". The arguments raised in favour of keeping the file were consistent with prevailing views about NFCC #8, and so I did not disregard them. Anyway, please do let me know if you decide to DRV this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (and for the support). Rest assured that it's not taken personally. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

US Federal Agency Seal with non-copyright restriction?

Hello J,

Can you comment on the following question I have related with an image with non-copyright restriction.

Thanks --Kiam-shim (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A Concern

I will pose this to you since Hammersoft is away at the moment...I have noticed on Hammersoft's list, it shows some pages that have 2 or 3 images in the infobox, WDBJ is an example. That station uses the main station logo and the DT2 station logo in the infobox, since the DT2 station doesn't have its own page yet. My concern is he will be removing these images on some NFCC push. Is that what he is proposing, because that is what it seems? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume so. If a logo is used only because the main organisation doesn't yet have an article, it's an improper use. Usages should be judged on their own merit; if you would remove the logo once the station had its own page, then you're basically saying it isn't needed on the page it was used on in the first place. Am I misunderstanding this? J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just there to show that in some cases (like WDBJ) the station has a subchannel and carries a different affiliation on that subchannel...in this case MyNetwork TV is carried on the subchannel. There is information explaining it in the article and infobox, so it isn't just there for looks, like the galleries are...it does serve a purpose and have explanation and everything. Most are also FUR'd to that page as well. Some aren't, if they aren't, let me know and I will put up the proper FUR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the article is not about them. For instance, (I'll use an example I'm familiar with) though it would be acceptable to have the logo for Waterstone's on our article on the company, there's no need to place it on the article about HMV Group. Naturally, the fact Waterstone's is owned by HMV Group is important, and worth discussing, but the logo of Waterstone's is not of importance with regards to HMV Group. (This is also a poor example, as the Waterstone's logo is clearly PD... No matter, I'm sure you understand my point.) J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be like having the NBC logo on NBC owned USA Network's page. I see your point, but I think the reason others have done that, is again the page, in this case WDBJ-DT2 hasn't been made, and there is some information about the station. Some users put the image with the section about it, some on the infobox. It is really up to the user on where to put it. Would it be better, than instead of in the infobox (since it is about the main station) to move the DT2 logo down to the section about the DT2 signal? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless the logo itself is discussed, I'd say it was best not to have it at all. There was a similar problem with the scouting WikiProject- it was solved by creating a large number of articles for the sub-groups. Articles that should always have existed, but were just never made. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the logo itself is discussed, I would have to check. I know there is a user who is going through making articles for the DT2 or DT3 stations. It is slow going, but he is working on it. Now, I have another question, this would not effect the main stations' logo, right? That would remain? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not support the removal of a single logo from the infobox in an article about the station the logo represents. I strongly doubt it would have any effect on them. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If the one logo remains, I guess that is OK. I would perfer if the two would remain, since they both have to do with the station in question, but we can work on that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The second logo can easily be kept if an article is created for the sub-channel. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I said "we can work on that" :) I have a few of the logos saved, so when the new articles are created (kinda out of my area of expertise....I make radio articles) I can re-upload the images. Oh, and slightly off subject, we may need to protect WUSA (TV), as there is an edit war going on with a user on his readding the gallery that is being deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've given the user a 3RR warning, so they have one more revert before they are blocked. I imagine they'll stop now. Thanks for your work to keep those logos out. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A Concern

I will pose this to you since Hammersoft is away at the moment...I have noticed on Hammersoft's list, it shows some pages that have 2 or 3 images in the infobox, WDBJ is an example. That station uses the main station logo and the DT2 station logo in the infobox, since the DT2 station doesn't have its own page yet. My concern is he will be removing these images on some NFCC push. Is that what he is proposing, because that is what it seems? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume so. If a logo is used only because the main organisation doesn't yet have an article, it's an improper use. Usages should be judged on their own merit; if you would remove the logo once the station had its own page, then you're basically saying it isn't needed on the page it was used on in the first place. Am I misunderstanding this? J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just there to show that in some cases (like WDBJ) the station has a subchannel and carries a different affiliation on that subchannel...in this case MyNetwork TV is carried on the subchannel. There is information explaining it in the article and infobox, so it isn't just there for looks, like the galleries are...it does serve a purpose and have explanation and everything. Most are also FUR'd to that page as well. Some aren't, if they aren't, let me know and I will put up the proper FUR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the article is not about them. For instance, (I'll use an example I'm familiar with) though it would be acceptable to have the logo for Waterstone's on our article on the company, there's no need to place it on the article about HMV Group. Naturally, the fact Waterstone's is owned by HMV Group is important, and worth discussing, but the logo of Waterstone's is not of importance with regards to HMV Group. (This is also a poor example, as the Waterstone's logo is clearly PD... No matter, I'm sure you understand my point.) J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be like having the NBC logo on NBC owned USA Network's page. I see your point, but I think the reason others have done that, is again the page, in this case WDBJ-DT2 hasn't been made, and there is some information about the station. Some users put the image with the section about it, some on the infobox. It is really up to the user on where to put it. Would it be better, than instead of in the infobox (since it is about the main station) to move the DT2 logo down to the section about the DT2 signal? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless the logo itself is discussed, I'd say it was best not to have it at all. There was a similar problem with the scouting WikiProject- it was solved by creating a large number of articles for the sub-groups. Articles that should always have existed, but were just never made. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the logo itself is discussed, I would have to check. I know there is a user who is going through making articles for the DT2 or DT3 stations. It is slow going, but he is working on it. Now, I have another question, this would not effect the main stations' logo, right? That would remain? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not support the removal of a single logo from the infobox in an article about the station the logo represents. I strongly doubt it would have any effect on them. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If the one logo remains, I guess that is OK. I would perfer if the two would remain, since they both have to do with the station in question, but we can work on that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The second logo can easily be kept if an article is created for the sub-channel. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I said "we can work on that" :) I have a few of the logos saved, so when the new articles are created (kinda out of my area of expertise....I make radio articles) I can re-upload the images. Oh, and slightly off subject, we may need to protect WUSA (TV), as there is an edit war going on with a user on his readding the gallery that is being deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've given the user a 3RR warning, so they have one more revert before they are blocked. I imagine they'll stop now. Thanks for your work to keep those logos out. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Orange Revolution

Hi!

You have proposed this file for deletion in this article.

Why?

Isn't the source under the GNU FDL?

And what about Fair use for Orange Revolution explained here

Regards,

Invest in knowledge (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Snorri Thorfinnsson

On July 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Snorri Thorfinnsson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What to do of images of WUSA(TV) & WJLA-TV

Hello. This may be my first time using this talk page, so here goes. About the images that I uploaded on Wikipedia pages WUSA (TV) and WJLA-TV, when I first read your message on my talk section saying that the images are not used on both articles, they were used at first before they were taken off those pages and labeled as orphans. I hope I did not offend you about what I did, but I'm just trying to reapply the non-free images on both articles before the deletion deadline. Bigvoice313 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bubbles the chimpanzee.jpg

The suggestion for adding Jackson to the image came from User:Ruhrfisch's comments at the peer review of Bubbles' article. He said that it would be a valid inclusion to the photograph. Pyrrhus16 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from as well. Thanks for the response. :) Pyrrhus16 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a thank-you note at here

--Kiam-shim (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your counter-assault re. SFan00.

You wrote here:

Elvey, comments like those two are not helpful. J Milburn (talk) 1:59 pm, 26 July 2009, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

I replied:

Seems like a helpful thing I can do for the project is to identify a massive history of unhelpful activity (while avoiding PAs) and elicit appropriate admin action. Done.--Elvey (talk) 2:45 pm, 26 July 2009, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

and then your response was to write on my talk page:

You really need to calm down, I think you've kind of missed the point here. It's not clear what you actually want from the the ANI thread, and your recent comments on the content noticeboard are, at best, a little odd. Sfan is not a vandal, and nor has reporting the issue to ANI and running solved anything. It would be best if this whole thing could be discussed calmly and reasonably. J Milburn (talk) 2:57 pm, 26 July 2009, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

I say User:Sfan00_IMG/User:Shakespeare Fan00 has vandalized. I say he has, and that from my writing on the AN/I thread, it is clear to anyone who reads what I wrote and follows the links I provided WHY I think so (hint). You say he is not a vandal, but have avoided providing any explanation as to what's wrong with my explanation, but rather have dropped these harsh accusations with the only justification for them being that, well, you say that he's not a vandal. If I was totally unjustified in using the term, I think you would have a point, by the way. (And you could argue that it is unhelpful to point out even where it is justified, but you haven't.) Certainly not every edit Shakespeare Fan00 has made was vandalism. But I have justified my use of the term. It's an important, complicated issue where vandalism is an important factor.

I strongly suspect you either didn't read my explanation for why I used the term 'vandal' or disagree with it. I don't know which.

If your intent is to offer me constructive advice or guidance, I ask that not write back to me without explaining what makes you rapid-fire the accusations of 'not helpful', 'reporting and running' and not 'calm and reasonable' at me, as well as explaining what admin action you feel is required with respect to Shakespeare Fan. Because right now, the above is the most plausible one to me and is a complete explanation for your behaviour. Is my deduction correct? Yes? No? Yes, but...? No, but...? You have not made it clear why you think what I've said (or what specifically that I've said) merits those accusations.

I'd rather have this discussion in one place, so since you offer to reply where asked, please reply here. Watching.--Elvey (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I jut saw this post of yours here(!):

I've also taken the liberty of letting ShakespeareFan know about this thread (via IRC). It is normally considered polite to let people know you are talking about them at the noticeboards. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have long since done so. It would be polite for you to strike and apologize for your hasty comment there.

• First of all, I shall not be editing the ANI archive, as it's been archived. Sfan had not actually noticed your "notification"- a link to the discussion may have been useful. Now, as to your main post... Which "explanation" are you referring to? I've read comments of yours in various places, but I'm not certain what the "explanation" was- could you please provide a link? A vandal is someone who deliberately harms Wikipedia- at worst, Sfan is misguided. In actuality, I would suspect Sfan is just a little clumsy with his tagging (I don't think he would mind me saying that- I have discussed his edits with him at length and, despite what you say, his tagging is becoming more accurate now). Neither of those make him a "vandal". Your comments were "not helpful" as they only served to enflame- describing a legitimate alternative account that has, in the past, run into problems as "a sock with ANI history" is not useful, and throwing the word "vandal" into a rather stagnant conversation on a good faith user is certainly not helpful. As for "calm down"... Well, I didn't see the point of the noticeboard message. Again, those kind of messages should be a last resort, when communication with the user has failed. The fact that it was hasty was shown by the fact that it was not clear what admin action you were looking for, and, additionally, that no one felt the need to reply with more than meta-notices. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... move your cursor over the word "hint", above. --Elvey (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You feel that mass-nomination of images at PUI is vandalism? J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I will respond to your other comments on my talk page when I can. --Elvey (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I say User:Sfan00_IMG/User:Shakespeare Fan00 has vandalized. That was not my reasoning at all.--Elvey (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So what was your reasoning? I'm not deliberately picking faults with your wording here, I'm just genuinely not seeing it. J Milburn (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File:MAXA01GEO RETAIL.jpg

Do you have any justification for this edit? Why do you believe the image is licensed as it is claimed? J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I believe the Rationale is Obvious. In other words: There are tons of proprietary software program screen shots like this, on wikipedia; their FUR applies to the image in question. Is that news to you? I think not.--Elvey (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then don't remove the deletion notice, add a fair use rationale and a non-free licensing template. J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it's appropriate to tell me that I must go make a specific edit? Is it OK for me to tell you to go improve an article? Is it OK for you to tell me to add a fair use rationale and a non-free licensing template? I notice you didn't answer the question I asked. Why don't you add a fair use rationale and a non-free licensing template?--Elvey (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commanding you to make an edit- note I said "then". If you believe what you are saying, then it would be in your best interests to make that edit, so that the image is not deleted for being uploaded under an improper license. I was offering you an alternative to the edits you were making, which were achieving little. As for the second question, I did not see you ask that (where was it asked?) but my answer is simple- I don't believe the image is adding much. I often add rationales to (for instance) album covers and logos, but for these more complex instances, I am usually not in a position to add the rationale myself; especially in this case, where the image is labelled as free. It could well be free, which adds another dimension to the issue. J Milburn (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote "I notice you didn't answer the question I asked," the question I refer to is: "There are tons of proprietary software program screen shots like this, on wikipedia; their FUR applies to the image in question. Is that news to you?" Still unanswered.--Elvey (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's news to me. Each use of each image needs its own rationale, so you can't just use another image's rationale. Furthermore, this isn't even a "standard" use (like, say, an album cover in the infobox in the article about the album) so another rationale couldn't really be used as the basis. This image is going to need its own custom rationale, explaining its own use, and its own details. Furthermore, as the image was claimed as free, my first priority was judging whether it genuinely was free, rather than judging whether it could be used under fair use. J Milburn (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your action is cited as an example of Copyright paranoia. That makes it standard. That page is venerable. It says:

Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page.

Your actions and comments make it clear that you find content that you think doesn't add value to the encyclopedia, and reference technicalities as an excuse to remove that content, instead of deleting it while being honest about the real reason that you want to delete it. This image is a solid example.--Elvey (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time fixing something that's just going to get deleted anyway. If there are numerous problems, I'll just tag it for the most obvious and move on. There's too much to do- an awful lot of images just need to go, it's better they're deleted on a technicality than wasting time with hours of discussion. J Milburn (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Franklin Sands.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Franklin Sands.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you a response to that, or should I just nominate the other images you have uploaded from the same source as well? J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes; no; I'll respond to the FFD you opened.--Elvey (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, we can discuss that there. J Milburn (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More issues...

Looking through your edits, I'm finding more issues. The administrators' noticeboard archives should not be edited- they're archives. I've reverted your comments there. Also, when retagging images as public domain, please do not leave the original tagging- images cannot be both public domain and non-free. This refers to File:Florida Highway Patrol.jpg, File:FHP Logo.jpg and File:FHP Badge.jpg (also, what's the deal with "Main Usage Justification"? That makes it sound like a rationale; licensing tags should go under "licensing"). Also, and more importantly, from what I gather, that tag is one to be used with care. Are you certain those usages are accurate? Images incorrectly tagged as PD are just going to get deleted, and are problematic for any number of reasons... J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It sure feels like you have it out for me since you got extremely angry that I dared to suggest SFan_00 needed admin action. I feel that before this and the above 2 sections, you'd already attacked me 5 times, apparently in response. It feels like you're trying to run me off. Just so you know how I feel. I don't welcome your advice - or your hostility. I don't agree with your views - at least the ones I know of, or your actions here. Because of that, let me insist: don't give me advice and don't tell me I've done something wrong without a reference to back it. If I could tell you to go away, I would.

I see a lot of editing of the AN/I archives, and that particular archive in particular. Can you cite the rule that says I can't edit that archive (or any archive)? Unlike other archives, it is not plastered with DO NOT EDIT THE ARCHIVE warnings; I find none. Unlike other archives, AN/I is archived after 24 hrs of inactivity. Whatever, I'll move the section back to the main page if necessary. Re. multiple tags: again, I ask: don't give me advice and don't tell me I've done something wrong without a reference to back it. Am I certain those usages are accurate? Follow the link and read the Florida constitution, and the case, and I think you'll be certain. There is no ambiguity, unless you don't understand the basics of 3-branch government. --Elvey (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Wow, what? I didn't get angry with you about Sfan, I just thought your actions were a little hasty, and advised you as such. I haven't attacked you once, and, whenever I have offered advice, I have done my best to back it up with evidence and provide deeper explanation when asked. I certainly don't "have it in for you", I just checked your contributions to see if you had responded to me anywhere, and started clicking- when I saw problems, I let you know. That's not having it in for you, that's trying to offer advice. Believe me, there's nothing personal here, at all. In what way do you feel I've been hostile? (And what "views" are you talking about?)

Ok, I'll take a deep breath and re-visit the various comments you made that felt like attacks, hopefully to see them in a new light... I did AGF, but felt like I was under rapid-fire attack. I'll be back after a short break, and will pick up then.--Elvey (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Now, in response to the specific issues- I don't think there is a written policy on the editing of archives, but the clue's in the name- it's an archive. It's not current. Nobody watches archive pages, and adding new comments will confused anyone who needs to reference them. If the issue is ongoing, starting a new discussion or moving the old one back to the main page is probably advisable.

Deleting my comments on the basis of an unwritten rule... well, it certainly feels hostile to this deletee. And unnecessarily so. You could do something less hostile instead, like leave them be. Or you could, as you suggest, move the old one back to the main page.--Elvey (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not going to leave comments that were not made in the archives- no one will see them, but it will cause confusion if the archives are referred to at a later date. I let you know that I had made the change, and offered you some alternative courses of action. If something is placed somewhere it should not be, it will generally be removed. You can still access your comment in the page history, if you want it reposted elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I still feel you were hostile, and don't find your justification compelling.--Elvey (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way was I hostile? You honestly think I should have left you to edit the ANI archive, leaving confusion for other users when they reference it, and annoyance for you when no one noticed your comments? J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

With regards to the issue of "multiple tags"- what kind of reference do you actually want? Do you mean to say you are going to believe that an image can be both public domain and "non-free" at the same time, until you see a policy page that says otherwise?

No. But are you of the belief that an edit that adds an appropriate rationale next to a pre-existing inappropriate one is detrimental? Surely not. But that seems to be what you're saying. (Consider a similar scenario: An editor that adds tags that flag problems (but don't trigger delayed deletion), presumably hoping someone else will come along and address the problems is detrimental?)

Yes, I would say that the edits were detrimental without the removal of the non-free tag. Beforehand, the image was being used under a perfectly legitimate non-free use rationale. However, with your addition of the tag, there was confusion- how should the image be treated? I've seen images nominated for deletion purely because there was so much confusion on the image page about its licensing. As I'm sure you've come to appreciate, the Wikipedia community as a whole cares very deeply about accurate licensing, and erring on the side of caution is the general practise. If you are not sure about whether an image is PD or non-free, asking around would be best- somewhere like media copyright questions, maybe. If you are sure, remove the non-free tag- that way, the image can be used freely, and there's no ambiguity. J Milburn (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

With regards to the Florida images, it can't be that clear cut, as we have ambiguity regarding the images I nominated for deletion (you claim PD, source website claims ARR), and the people who originally uploaded the images you have retagged did not get it, if we assume that you are correct. It was a simple reminder to be careful with that particular tag, not an accusation. There's no need to be so defensive- perhaps you could explain why you're so sure your tagging was accurate, while that of the original uploaders was not?

As I said at the PUI debate, I've reviewed this situation and contacted another user knowledgable of these things, and it seems that these images, too, are public domain. However, I maintain that the situation is both complicated and sticky- not all of the excemptions are listed on our template. Again, that was only meant as a reminder to be careful with the tag, as it wasn't a simple one; you had used it incorrectly already (through the double-tagging) so I didn't think a reminder would hurt. J Milburn (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did so at the deletion discussion. You MUST "understand the basics of 3-branch government", as I said, or you will find the ambiguity you've found. You understand where the Constitution and the Judiciary fit in the hierarchy? It's critical. (Let's move/continue this FL img thread over to/at the deletion discussion.)--Elvey (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly, it's entirely possible I wouldn't understand the system- I'm British, our system's very different. It's also the early hours over here. However, I have studied politics, so I do have a fairly solid grasp. Like I say, this certainly wasn't unambiguous, but, as I say, I am now confident that you were correct. There's no need to move this discussion to the deletion debate, as the debate is not closed. I'm sure we can consider this issue generally closed. J Milburn (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

(You're welcome to split this comment to give replies to the different aspects- it will probably be easier to follow the conversation that way.) J Milburn (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -Elvey

Crowz

,"Crowz" is an album which was never released. Slipknot were going to make the album after having released "mfkr", but never did. Then they began writing new lyrics and new riffs, and they decided to release the selftitled album. Crowz is believed to be a Bootleg made of Rare Slipknot demos which were never put together into a record. Most songs would be re-made and featured on MFKR and Slipknot. "Crowz" was recorded, and re-recorded, and re-recorded... Before Slipknot got signed they were working on a "revised" MFKR with better produced versions of those songs, along with newer stuff that was written with Corey on vocals, This was to do two things: 1) Give them a quality demo to shop to labels. 2) If not signed, they could put it out independently as a replacement for MFKR. Some of this stuff was recorded at SR with Sean McMahon, some was done at Juniors' Motel in Otho. It really depended on what was needed at the time. Some of those songs have many multiple versions and mixes. For example, there are at least two versions of 'Prosthetics' that I have heard prior to the S/T. Some songs, like Snap, were done quickly at Otho and sent out as a demo to give record companies something new compared to MFKR. Crowz refers to a saying we (slipknot) started which started following a spooky incident when we where taking Paul home after a studio session, and the road his place was on was covered entirely with crowz, or blackbirds, or whatever. Thousands upon thousands of them. When the headlights flashed over them, they all took to the trees as one big, black mass. It was eerie. Then, they all sat in the trees and phone lines watching us. That's where Crowz came from. Plus, Shawn found a dead one in his driveway, and kept it in a big, commercial pickle jar, and carried it around at shows until it turned to mush, During shows Shawn would open the jar, this would cause him to vomit all over the place and also cause fans to start vomiting all over the place. It was (sic), it was kept in the jar with all the bacteria and flesh eating creatures. It started secreting this brown liquid and became a fine sauce. [yum] Some kids broke the jar open and played catch with it for awhile and now it's disposed.

Please bring Crowz back, I worked SO hard on it and it looked like any other slipknot album. I could semi-protect it or edit it to say 'whatever' if you bring it back. The informaton above proves that crowz in fact, did excist. However it was not a released album. It is like the re-recorded version of mate.feed.kill.repeat.. Some songs HAVE leaked onto the internet, and that PROVES that crowz excisted.

Please bring crowz back —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLonersMusic (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: KPNX

Stop removing the logos from the KPNX article, just because you think the logos don't meet WP:NFCC#8 doe's not mean the community think's the logos don't meet WP:NFCC#8 that is why there is a discussion at WP:MCQ to see if the community think's the logos meet WP:NFCC#8 or not. So until there is a community consensus at WP:MCQ to see if the community think's the logos meet WP:NFCC#8 or not, the logos should not be removed. Powergate92Talk 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the community has to decide if the logos meet WP:NFCC#8 or not, you are not the community and you can not decide for the community. Powergate92Talk 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"they cannot be included" is what you think not what the community think's. Powergate92Talk 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there has been no consensus to include the logos but there has also been no consensus to remove the logos so as there is no consensus to include the logos you can remove the logos saying they don't meet WP:NFCC#8 and as there is also no consensus to remove the logos i can readd the logos saying they do meet WP:NFCC#8 so you should stop removing the logos until there is consensus or you will be edit waring with all users who think the logos meet WP:NFCC#8. Powergate92Talk 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just informing the users who were in the other discussion about this discussion. As i said in the discussion at WP:MCQ, the logos increase a readers' understanding of the TV stations history as they show the TV stations history in image. Powergate92Talk 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If your agreeing with me that the logos in KPNX meet WP:NFCC#8 then yes this discussion is closed, if not then this discussion is not closed. Powergate92Talk 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What do mean "that's not actually what this discussion is about"? This discussion is about the logos is the KPNX article. Powergate92Talk 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantas logos

Could you take a look at the discussion at User talk:Drilnoth#Quanta logos, please? I agree with your reasons for orphaning the images, but I think that doing this goes against the spirit WP:CSD#F5, by simply removing the logos. This kind of thing is usually taken to FFD, which I've now done with those two images. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:James hall III.jpg

How is "US Army" not a source? Every officer and upper level non-commissioned officers in the US Army have their photograph taken on base to be displayed as part of the chain of command that is put on display in every unit's building so every one can see the face behind the name. That photograph is one of those that is put on display. Thus I am going to revert your edit. Thanks Trentc (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:SSB SHOULDER TITLE & RED TAB.jpg

Hi Mr. Milburn - please refer to the licence and source text changes made on the above photo. I have also left the below message on user:whoosis' talk page. I sincerely believe this image deserves preservation!

Hi Whoosis. I have re-licenced image file:SSB SHOULDER TITLE & RED TAB.jpg in Wiki Commons and have added the following text " Source = This photo was originally uploaded by user:Whoosis and incorrectly placed under Licence type Template:Logo fur.... Whoosis states in the orignal text that: 1. He had purchased the actual insignia and 2. From the camera details visible, that he had taken the photo. As I cannot "sign" on behalf of user:Whoosis, I have re-classified this photo (as it is up for deletion) as licence type {PD-SELF} WHERE SELF REFERS TO USER:WHOOSIS. I have left a massage on his user page for him to re-do this under his own signature, as that would be the correct method to ensure the continued availablity of the photograph on Commons. If the above is incorrect, User:Whoosis has been requested to either correct the licence informaiton or to delete the image. A simple BOT induced deletion is totally uncalled for!" PLease visit this image and sign the licence under your user-name, or alternatively, delete it. I think it is a valuable image from the perspective of the S Afr forces in WWII. I have used it in the article on the 1st Infantry Division (South Africa). Regards. Farawayman (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regards and hope this will resolve the issue. Farawayman (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

RE

I felt it had to be said, since I am fed up with IMatt's drama. I was upset, annoyed, tired, etc over his constant returning to either say the current formats are all wrong when he himself agreed to change them, bad mouthing the members of the project, and saying I should leave wikipedia because everything would be so much better. I felt justified in saying it. I knew something would probably happen but I would deal with it then. Matter a fact, being blocked would help me finish other projects I want to do in real life and cut my addiction off to this site at the core, though I would rather another block not tarnish the name of Wrestlinglover for a possible future RfA after I become more familiar with the policies of course. Then the questions "Why block a user who has expanded 19 articles to either FA, GA, or FL, and several others to to at least B class from either Stub, Start, or List? Why block one who also reviews Lists at FLC and articles at FAC and GAN. Matt and I just have different opinions which clash, and have for some time now. I do not intend to start a problem on here, they just happen in the heat of the moment. To be honest I do not regret my comments—comments which I am sure others agree with—but I do intend to return to the discussion and try to sort out a descision, and I would be glad if Matt would return as well. I do understand at the sametime I was in the wrong, but we are all only human and only as good as God made us. After the situation cools down, I do plan to work things out with Matt.-WillC 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem.--WillC 15:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Question!!!

Under what license can I upload an image of a building I found on a website? A.h. king (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an image of Murr Television's building, It is located on [1].A.h. king (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:CommandconquerCover.jpg, File:MusicOfRedAlert.jpg and File:CommandConquerTS Front Full.jpg

I requested the images restored and used them but currently another user is removing the images. We are in discussion at present and I hope to have the images back in the article asap. Thanks for your patience, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not for the exact article, for full details of the discussion you can take a gander at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#Fair use covers in a video game discography. Cheers -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with this policy and the way of defining Discographies but I fear that consensus is against me in this matter. From what I've gathered it would be permissible for ONE image to be in the article? -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason the images being used on the Final Fantasy articles -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter if it was copied and pasted? It's still relavent. The point remains. Does this or does this not meet wikipedia standards Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That rational was from File:Ff6sd.jpg. Which is included in a GA class Music of article. "One representative image is fine. The spotchecks of the FF ones all use a single image and thus are not the same as illustrating every album cover, as say the Ace Attorney ones" says User:Masim

Are you citing official policy or a personal view on the matter? In the meantime I am going to be WP:BOLD and WP:IAR as it seems the FF articles have done and add the image of the original release with the rational above which I personally believe is following wikipedia policy. I will of course, await your response first. -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a discussion if you reject outright my opinion on the matter and sidestep a reply with "Was that a copy-paste? It may as well have been..." which does not help matters. You have your opinion that these images are not beneficial, I have the opposite opinion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the identifying artwork of the album. It was designed to go with the audio of the product. It is designed to compliment it and add to the product as a whole -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• [2]. I have removed all but one image but it is my opinion that that one image is allowed to stay. Regardless WP:IAR, so that is what I am doing. I feel that the inclusion of this image improves the article. Clearly other people involved in WP:VG have this same opinion as the people who have constantly defended the inclusion have always been part of WP:VG bar one or two. Clearly this is just a difference of opinion from people who have different interests. I gather you are not much interested in video game music. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• First off, no need for the language and no need to insult me ("or at least assume I'm dealing with a reasonable, mature and well-meaning adult").
• Also, will you please stop talking about "opinions"- this shouldn't be a matter of "this is what I think" "WELL, this is what I think"- this should be a matter of discussing the merits of the use of images and weighing them against the negatives, referencing our policies and guidelines as we go -- Wikipedia is all about consensus, what is consensus but opinions? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on wikipedia, so no, I will not stop talking about them when I believe them relevant to the discussion. You've already said I've already said I don't agree with that usage I'm sorry, but that is an opinion.
• I have told you why I think the image merits are and you've done the opposite. You've repeatedly ask me "why" and when I respond I get another "why". To be honest I'm getting a little tired of constantly having to explain what I think is the best way to improve the article to you, you clearly don't agree. Good for you, you have your own opinion and I respect that but that doesn't mean I am going to follow your opinion.
• "you're just gonna run off and do what you like anyway?", I object to this statement, I am not just going to "do what I like", I do my best to follow the policy's on wikipedia. I, like you, am no newbie. One of wikipedia's core policys is WP:IAR which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (I quote this not because I do not think you know it but to add to my point). What is improvement, some argue that an article can be improved by doing a, others b. Opinion.

Now, why do I think the image should be included? Because I feel they improve the article. Answer me this, why do you feel they should not be included. And please do not answer with a question, I am genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter, not policy, not why should they, etc but why YOU think they should not.

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside I was asked for my thoughts on this matter, and wrote this.  Chzz  ►  17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chzz, your comments are well thought out and very relevant. Cabe, I am not in a position to answer you at this time. Rest assured I will be replying as appropriate tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Having reread your comments, this reply seems appropriate. I'm done with this discussion. Read our non-free content critiera, and don't view them as rules to be played with, view them as help with regards to making a judgement. Right now, you don't seem to believe that NFC is a negative. It's not easy to discuss these issues with someone who has completely the wrong attitude, and I'm not going to waste my time with it any longer. If you're putting one random album cover in, so be it, but don't come crying to me when it's removed or your article fails GAC/FAC. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Low res?

Resizing does improve the apparent sharpness, but that isn't why I do it. The full sized sharpness of my fungi images is generally very good. I resize since a large proportion of off-wiki users don't respect the licence. The image quality differences can be attributed to technique and equipment. As far as equipment goes I am usually using about 6 kilograms worth of camera, lens, lighting gear and tripod for each fungi shot. A digital SLR, tripod and macro lens may be worth considering in the long term. If I was in your shoes I'd be acquiring a cheap tripod. I'd use the lowest ISO setting (64), an aperture of about f5.6, a focal length in the middle of the zoom range and the timer to eliminate vibration. You should be able to improve quality considerably doing so. I need to rename the article, but [3] may be interesting (ignore the aperture advice, it is for a dSLR).Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Piece offering

Hey, just wanted to say that I respect you as an editor and a wikipedian. We clearly have differing views on certain things, but then again who doesn't! :p As such, I come bearing a piece cookie in the hopes that we can put any bad blood that may exist between us behind

I thank you for your time and effort and I apologise if I offended you in our previous encounter and I present you with this cookie:

Cabe6403 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

69.153.221.50/Image Galleries

You may want to look into these edits as they have to do with image galleries being readded. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Some of them were just copying the current image into a gallery, which was just silly (see WUPV for an example of that), but the others I wasn't sure how to handle. Thanks for the response on that. Take Care and Have a Great Week Ahead...NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Logos, an ongoing saga

User:Eastmain is FUR'ing some logos from WUTB and readding them back to the page. I reverted the readdition to the page, but not the FURs, I am not sure how to handle that. I said for him to take it up with you or to talk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam's Club

Hey. Twice now someone has readded the logo gallery. Rather than reverting it again, I thought I'd let you know about it. Someone has also opened a thread on Talk:Sam's Club#Logo gallery about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Shamil basayev.jpg

Just because Basayev is speaking into a transmitter, that does not in itself make the picture unnotable. It is an iconic image of him and is used in both the articles to illustrate him during the Dagestan invasion which he instigated along with Ibn al-Khattab as the principal commander. I have not added it because it looks good. I believe that i have mentioned this before. So, please don't keep removing it as the reason you have provided for doing so is not appropriate. If there is an alternative free image depicting him during the invasion, then please do so. I have surfed the net, but have been unable to find an alternative image. As such, let it be. I have read WP:NFCC and i believe that it fulfills it's criteria for inclusion. Thanks. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be shown? What should he be doing in an image to make it look notable? I'm not being sarcastic. It's an honest question. Yes, it does add something to the article. It illustrates him during the Dagestan invasion as commander of the Chechen mujahideen troops, as i have repeated for the third time. This in itself is a valid reason and justifies it's inclusion to the article. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfree pictures

Could take a look that the recent edits at Ibn Al-Khattab: [4]. There are now two unfree images of him, although one would suffice. Am I correct that we are allowed to use unfree image at most? Offliner (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that both images be kept. The first image is a popular iconic image of Khattab and is used to illustrate him whereas, the second image shows Ibn al-Khattab training Chechen guerillas in the use of RPG's during the Second Chechen war which illustrates a particular role that he played as a trainer of Mujahideen. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And that particular role does not need to be illustrated... A single image of the subject to serve as identification is useful. As far as I can see, there is nothing else in the article that urgently needs illustrating. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't it need to be illustrated? It was an important role as far as can be determined. He was a chief financier and trainer of the Mujahideen, and played a prominent role in the Second Chechen War. WP:NFCC nowhere states that only one non-free image is sufficient in an article and only for identification purposes. A non-free image can also be used for illustrating an historic event. Joyson Noel (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that it is needed. If you genuinely had read our NFCC, you would understand that. Further, I am not challenging the importance of the fact that "He was a chief financier and trainer of the Mujahideen, and played a prominent role in the Second Chechen War"- I'm only saying we don't need a picture to show that. Say it, by all means, but don't go and steal a picture to show it... J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read this carefully, so as to avoid a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to feud with you, in case that's what you are wondering, but what i have done is not stealing. It's called fair use. Stealing is when you use someone else's work and claim it as your own, without providing any attribution to it's rightful owner. As for providing the burden of proof, that's what i did, but you just keep dismissing the image as unworthy of inclusion. I'm aware that you are not challenging the facts, but the reasons i want the pictures to be included are two:

(1)It depicts a historic event showing him train Chechen guerillas during the War.

(2)It's inclusion as an image would give the novice reader a better understanding of the event. After all, a picture speaks a thousand words. Even though it is not needed to show their particular role, it's inclusion will nevertheless give a clearer picture to the novice reader and this will significantly increase the article's quality in serving an educational purpose, which is what wikipedia is all about. Plus, WP:NFCC clearly states that a Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

This image, plus the Basayev one, satisfies both purposes. Moreover, your reasons for removal are not appropriate. I have read WP:NFCC carefully and can state with the utmost confidence that i am in no way of violation of that. As such, i'm going to re-insert them in their respective articles. However, if you still disagree with me, then please open a Request for Comment in order to get some more editors to discuss the issue. Please do not revert my edit unless consensus has been reached to do so. Likewise, if it turns out that the consensus agrees with your argument, I will respect that. Joyson Noel (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, i did not patronise you. If you are mad at me for the comment i made refuting your allegation about me "stealing images", then i apologize. I really meant no disrespect, but i had to give a straightforward answer to defend myself against that unwarranted allegation that you made towards me. My intention was to defend myself, not to make you look like a fool. I'm aware that you are an old and significant contributor to wikipedia, and i respect that, but put yourself in my shoes, wouldn't you would have done the same? Is it fair for you to unjustly accuse me of stealing, but unfair for me to defend myself against it? Other than that, i tried my level best to be civil in my conduct towards you. This isn't an ownage contest. We are Wikipedians, not little kids. Sure, we have disagreements on this particular matter, but in wikipedia, one should expect to face disagreements. Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean that i am patronising you or have enmity with you. Come on! In fact, i went out of my way to request you to read my words carefully, and clearly stated that i did not want to feud with you, since i sensed that we would have problems, and wanted to avoid them. I tried my level best to act like a responsible and civil contributor. However, i am sure that in this one instance you are wrong and i'm right for the reasons i stated earlier. But if you still contest my position, then please do as i requested earlier. Until then, let that image remain. I assure you that if the outcome is in your favor, i will respect that. Peace!Joyson Noel (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Question

Why are you tagging the images on WTKR for deletion when they aren't page of galleries? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason they were put up on the WTKR page is those anchors are no longer at WTKR. Ed Hughes passed away a few years back and was a long standing anchor at WTKR, Jane Gardner was also a long standing anchor at WTKR. But I can understand what you mean, but I think you understand why I would like to keep them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

image galleries

Please refrain from removing image galleries unless the images are either tagged for deletion, or have been requested for removal (such as via a DMCA Takedown Notice). RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Better nominate the logos for Microsoft, NBC, and Wikipedia itself for speedy deletion becuase those are not free if you want to go by that logic. The NFCC actually allows for non-free television station logos and non-free images, the exact opposite of what you were saying it did on my talk page. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RingtailedFox and I have redone WTOL in terms of images; hopefully you find it acceptable. Ringtail helpfully removed the galleries and reduced the images to an encyclopedic two, which illustrate the change of the logo throughout the ages and are therefore helpful to the reader. I believe they satisfy every criterion of NFCC in this way. You can delete the other images that were in the gallery, I guess. Cheers, and thanks a lot for compromising! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop disrupting articles about Polish WWII history, those images are perfectly valid under fair use. You can help by updating tags or rationales, but removing captions and trying to delete the images is disruptive. PS. I should also add that those images are a victim to meta:copyright paranoia, as the author is unknown, and Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which hosts them has given us permission to use them. They are invaluable to the articles they illustrate, and in no way endanger or disrupt Wikipedia - their removal, on the other hand, is. If you disagree, I'd like to suggest that you bring the issue, along with the arguments why each individual article should be removed, to WP:PWNB. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've added FURs to those images, but as far as I can tell most of them had it initially - I am wondering if you looked at their pages? If they were missing some new template, the solution is to add it, not to try to delete a useful image. Please remember we are here to build a useful resource :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like you to bring those particular images for discussion at the abovementioned board (we could also link it from MILHIST). Editors there are knowledgeable about the issue, and may help find free replacements. I do agree with some of your decisions - like the fact that we don't need two fair use book covers to illustrate a person - but I think others need to be discussed by a wider community. Perhaps we can prune some of those images, we don't need 10 images of soldiers of the 27th Division, but for example, we certainly need at least one - and you tried to remove the only photo of the 7th Infantry Division (Poland). Let's start such a discussion, and try to reach a consensus; reverting one another is not helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg - it is a good quality photo of soldiers of a notable unit (still lacking an article), with weapons, in a forest setting (nice illustration for leśni of Armia Krajowa) that takes time during a notable operation. Now, why do you think it should be deleted? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user who wrote the rationale. Again you have not answered my question - why do you want to delete it? How is it damaging to this project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Significance is in the eye of the beholder. I and apparently Mtsmallwood believe it is important. I fail to see how your opinion can overrule ours; hence I suggested a community should discuss this. I have made a post here, feel free to advertise it elsewhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"This isn't a matter of opinion". Uh. You don't think it is important. That's an opinion. I think it is. It is an opinion. You think it's just a bunch of irrelevant guys with guns in a forest, hence unimportant. It's an opinion. I think it's a clearly labeled and described group of historically important soldiers, with notable equipment, in notable time and place, none of which can be reproduced. It is also a matter of opinion. As we are deadlocked, since neither one of us can justify his opinion on this, we need other members of community to weight in and contribute their opinion (on whether those photos are important or not), per dispute resolution procedure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing? From where I stand, I am trying to preserve a rare and informative set of images that are completely of no danger to this project (since the only organization that has claimed any form of copyright over them has given us permission to use). And I see you as trying to delete those images because you seem they are unimportant, where apparently at least three editors (me, Mtsmallwood and original uploader) have evidently thought differently. PS. Please link the IfD(s) at the WikiProject discussion thread I linked below, thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa images

Your recent edits had the effect of blocking captions on about six images on Armia Krajowa. I restored the captions but left in your template that the fair use of the images was challenged. I also called attention to this on the talk page. Now I see that my changes, which was intended to inform question of fair use, and not supersede or preempt it, have all been reverted, and now there are no captions again, only a challenge to fair use. This seems unreasonable under the circumstances without previous discussion on the talk page. 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't understand the reasons behind your recent removal of so many important images related to AK as well as other Poland related WW2 articles. I "don't buy" your arguments and I think you are wrong. This is my honest opinion and I think you, being an administrator, should know better that removal of images does not improve the quality of the articles. Looking for for any excuse to remove them is simply counterproductive to the development of this project. God bless you...--Jacurek (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_22#File:Blood_of_Kingu_-_Alternative_Artwork.jpg

Apologies for the time it's taken me to get back to you on this; I've been ruminating on it a bit. The most important conclusion I've reached is that if you want to take this to DRV as well, which I gather from your post you probably do, I'll hold off on closing anymore remotely contentious FFDs until the DRV has run its course, and take whatever conclusions emerge from it (and hopefully there will be some, unlike in the Peter Pan one) under advisement if I subsequently elect to return to FFD closures. That said, I wanted to respond to a few of the points you made with which I don't agree:

• ""it's established practice that illustration of album cover artwork meets NFCC #8" is simply wrong, wrong, wrong." I hate to resort to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments, but there are so many articles on albums that feature low-resolution copies of the artwork that I don't see how you can deny that this is established practice. It seems to be such well-established practice that they don't even seem to get nominated for deletion anymore, let alone actually deleted (I'm speaking here of one example per article, as I was when I mentioned the established practice in the first place).
• I appreciate the distinction between including one album cover per album article and including more than one. But I don't think the difference is so clearcut that we can say "Even though including non-free album covers in articles about the album in question is well-established practice here, including a second one is such a flagrant violation of WP:NFCC that they should be deleted without discussion (or without regard for the views expressed in the discussion). If we accept that it's a legitimate interpretation of WP:NFCC that a single album cover is acceptable, I don't see how we can say that suggesting that a second one be used is clearly forbidden by it—these strike me as shades of grey.
• "there is certainly no precedent that these images are legitimate, other than the one you've just created." Speaking specifically on the issue of alternate album artwork, there was a precedent brought up in the FFD itself: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2009_January_10#03_Bonnie_.26_Clyde_UK.jpg. In that case as in this one, the existence of an alternate cover is mentioned in the article, but the album cover is not actually discussed. The situation seems very similar to this one.
• I continue to disagree that the prevailing view expressed by editors participating in an FFD is irrelevant, but I don't really have much more to say on that question than what I've already said.

Anyway, I presume that this will go to DRV, where I hope either my view or yours will be clearly endorsed, and we can avoid making this sort of conversation into a trend. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response - I somehow didn't notice your comments until today. You've given me a fair bit to think about, and I may have a more useful response once I've done so. But with regards to your overriding point, I long ago determined that Wikipedia's broken governance model is such that there's very little point in trying to accomplish anything controversial, since the mob you're always subject to mob (over)rule. Effective enforcement of the NFCC is controversial, so...well, you can complete the syllogism yourself, I'm sure. In any event, I'm going to stay away from FFD for the foreseeable future, because this conversation has made me realize that it's probably not a good use of my time. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi. I know you're a busy guy, but, would you help me in starting a deletion review for this discrepancy? --Damiens.rf 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not able to deal with that issue right now, but I will look into it tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WYCD

I really am trying to get this right. I explained in the history section of each format that part of the station's branding for that format includes the logo and tried my best to describe said logo. I purposely left out the fourth logo that was in the gallery because the current station logo is similar, thus, it's just a modification. I think previous logos are an important part of understanding the history of stations in regards to station branding throughout the years. It just needs to be done right so it's in compliance. Hopefully I've done that here. Thanks RobDe68 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Boxing News

I don't know exactly what you are asking me for... I work for Boxing News who are owned by Newsquest Specialist Media. Can you tell me, in layman's terms, exactly what you need and what the consequences of this will be? Danny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbflex (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise novel covers

Thanks for sorting the right ones for me, there are too many licences to choose from! Thanks, Dave (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Those images were used in three different articles. You removed them and they had the no-fair use for the article, their copyright status was correct and nothing was wrong. I added them back to the articles and it is no longer orphaned. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File Description of File:John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg

As I was wondering over the vast waste lands known as wikipedia, I came upon this File in which I attempted to clean up the description using {{Information}} except it's still messy, especially in the actual description of the file which appears to be the mixture of a couple files based on the NPG link and since I noticed that you appear to be very good with imaging work was wondering if you take a crack at it?. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 07:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where it comes from? There are lots of versions on the internet, and some are certainly better that the version we currently have - such as this.  Chzz  ►  11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is it you're asking me? There doesn't appear to be any great issue with the image- (almost) certainly public domain. You're looking for more author info? I checked a few books I have that discuss Mill- two had no portraits, the third had a portrait of him as an older man, and no source information anyway. However, there are similar images in the NPG archives- this one appears to be a reproduction/restoration of one of those. It may be worth replacing it with one from the NPG website until we're more certain of where precisely the current image came from. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No... just to clean up the textual information describing the file within it's {{Information}} box. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Whales

Are you afraid of only whales, or other creatures in the deep sea? -->David Shankbone 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploader can verify?

I am curious about this edit where you say “the uploader can verify that the copyright of the image was not renewed.” Is that statement based on something other than his statement that “it appears most likely to be” PD? That statement looks to me like a guess. —teb728 t c 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My only reason for doubting was the iffy statement I quoted above. Thank you for straightening out the image status. And thank you for the link to your separate discussion; it makes me confident that he has checked the PD status. —teb728 t c 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical vs. current sport logos

You might find this interesting: User_talk:Masem#Historical_vs._current_sport_logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into that on Sunday- won't be around tomorrow, and not able to right now. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

KATU article

Explain why those images should be removed. Those images show past KATU logos. Its legit. The image on your page is not "free". Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-Gonzales (talk • contribs) 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This user does have a point. Non free images should not be used on userpages. Please find a free version of that image, upload it and use it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Which image is this? all the barnstars are on commons which means they are free, all the symbols are afaik as well and the only other image I can see is File:John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg which is in public domain.... Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 11:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got no idea what you're talking about, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the KATU article where you said that there are non free images on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-Gonzales (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are. I fail to see what any of the images, apart from the one in the infobox, adds to the article. One of them is already used, and the others are purely decorative- if they are so important, there would be sourced discussion of them in the text. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you even live in the portland aera? It seems you have a huge issue with images. I've been reading the other posts on your talk page and all seemed to be aimed at your obession with "free" images. Chris-Gonzales (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, I have a solid understanding of our image policy and work with it frequently, and no, I know nothing of the subject matter of the article. That surely makes me a far better judge of the issues than someone who has preconceptions about the station, and a limited knowledge of policy? J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The KATU article shows three logos. Since none of them is licensed under a free license, their use is limited by Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In particular:

• WP:NFCC#3a says, “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” The stated purpose of the logos is to “identify” the subject of the article. But only one logo (presumably the current one) is needed for this purpose.
• WP:NFCC#8 says, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Just showing old logos does not significantly increase reader understanding.

So two of the logos (presumably the old ones) have got to go. —teb728 t c 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I was meaning this image. It is non-free and you should find a free version and put that one up. I have no concern with the KATU images. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ...It's public domain? You can't get any freer than that. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't the "National Portrait Gallery" still own the copyright to it since they have it in there catalog of portraits? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Merely owning the painting does not mean you own the copyright- I own some paintings/sketches my family bought from local artists, but the copyright is still owned by the respective artists. As the creator of this image died many years ago, the image has fallen into the public domain. The NPG does like to claim copyright on their reproductions of the paintings (their photographs of them) but under US law, they don't have a leg to stand on, and the Wikimedia Foundation have said that they are not willing to respect the NPG's claims. The NPG have threatened legal action over the issue (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright threat) but, until the Foundation says otherwise, we're fine to use the images. Does that answer your question? J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        • That was my main worry was that "Copyright Threat" thread. I had seen that and then seen this and thought "uh oh, not again". Don't want to see anyone going to a mess of dealing with legal threats and the Foundation over a picture. If the Foundation isn't concerned and they are public domain, then that works for me. Just erring on the side of caution. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mills

I dispute your judgement on the validity of Fair use images of LCC mills - but being on vacation till 1 Septembre with limited internet access wheree the keylayout is differnet I can't debate the point till then- can I request you revert your deletions untill we can discuss this properly. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

See my recent contribs and this. Black Kite 17:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Kate Lawler and other images

If I were to provide print-screen confirmation of the messages I recieved over Facebook for this image and the other images I've uploaded today, would you be able to verify them as (File:Craig Phillips.jpg) this file is verified? I can't forward the e-mail to the address in the template as Facebook mail is not connected to e-mail. Thanks. DJ 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll do this tommorow morning. Thanks for your understanding :) DJ 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your understandable comments

I do not put directly onto an article for the simple fact that it bewilders me and i fear that i would upset someone, therefore i help out on talk pages. For example telling the regular editors of mistakes on articles such as John Redmond, the Seven Years War (these might be in archives now) etc and in engaging in important decisions on articles such as the Napoleonic Wars, the British Empire, Winston Churchill, the Opium Wars, Margaret Thatcher etc, providing my knowledge in these areas over topics that cause much argument (ie bias with the Thatcher article and over whether the war of 1812 should be mentioned in the Napoleonic War article). In the end some kind person always seems to do the confusing part of article additions etc so it seems to work out well. Though i can see why this might have caused some concern! I supposse its the old "comfort zone" thing. However i might try and dabble in the article thing (but i'll blame you if it all goes wrong:)).--Willski72 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your understandable comments

I do not put directly onto an article for the simple fact that it bewilders me and i fear that i would upset someone, therefore i help out on talk pages. For example telling the regular editors of mistakes on articles such as John Redmond, the Seven Years War (these might be in archives now) etc and in engaging in important decisions on articles such as the Napoleonic Wars, the British Empire, Winston Churchill, the Opium Wars, Margaret Thatcher etc, providing my knowledge in these areas over topics that cause much argument (ie bias with the Thatcher article and over whether the war of 1812 should be mentioned in the Napoleonic War article). In the end some kind person always seems to do the confusing part of article additions etc so it seems to work out well. Though i can see why this might have caused some concern! I supposse its the old "comfort zone" thing. However i might try and dabble in the article thing (but i'll blame you if it all goes wrong:)).--Willski72 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Tagging and removal of non-free images with good rationale already in place is POVed. You're supposed to be impartial. Why did you remove the extended info for the image I uploaded called File:Irena-Adamowicz.jpg, using misleading edit summary? You deleted a lot of data generated by a bot, calling it: "Cleanup, consolidate rationale and licensing info". What cleanup!? You removed the actual file info, which was totally unnecessary, making it impossible to trace back the process. You're making the lives of others hard with no overriding reason. --Poeticbent talk 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the non-free licensing template, removed information that wasn't needed, consolidated the two rationales into one and provided a little extra information. I cleaned up the image description. What about that do you feel was a poor edit? What was lost that needed to be kept? What was added that should not have been? J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not upset about your edit, I'm upset about the process. Please be more considerate in the future. You marked for deletion a perfectly good image,[5] that had everything in it including the source info, if you were careful enough to spent more time with it and follow the links generated by the bot. All I did in response to your request for source was to copy and paste that link again. But, what if I was on vacation? The image would have been deleted on a false premise. All I ask is that you stop making work, that's all. Thanks, and be well. — Poeticbent talk 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bedtime Stories (album)

Yeah Hi! Listen I have a question about the Bedtime Stories (album) article. some user removed the International cover section ebcaused according to him/her that section is not relevant,, and he/she has removed every single alternate cover section from all the Madonna albums that have one for the same reason that its not relevant. But if I remember correctly those sections had been there for a long time. So how come no one noticed untill now that they were irrelevant to the article? Could you please check that? Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bedtime Stories (album) response

What do U mean?? My point here is that if that image didnt add nothing to the article how come it was there before I was even part of wikipedia??? how come back then it wasnt irrelevant but now is? that is my question. And yeah I've tried talking to him/her but he/she never responses. Thnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bedtime Stories (album) response

But shouldnt that image at least bring some type of contribution. After all not everyone has the "original coverart" album, like me I own the nternational "version" So doesnt that add at least a certain contribution??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPilotoDi (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Arthropleura - Tracks.JPG

I have added the rationale for this image's fair use in the article Arthropleura. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the rationale template - thanks for directing me to it. Where can I find a non-free-use warning template such as you spoke of? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll replace that section with 'Yes.' I think I already have such a template on the page, though, under Licensing. Should I re-order them? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I am slightly out-of-range of the fossil site to replicate this image on my own, I will keep looking online for a free-use replacement. Unless you think someone else might be able to provide rationale for its preservation, go ahead and remove the image - I'd appreciate if you cleared it out of the article itself if and when you choose to do so. Thanks. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Zorro

This picture was placed to make more clear the text to it's right as to the similarities between Zorro and The Queen of Swords;ie. The costume. In fact the official Zorro website[6] has copied whole chunks of the wikipedia popular culture section. The picture is no different to the other pictures on the Zorro page illustrating the text. Please Replace.REVUpminster (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On the Queen of Swords (television series) article and talk page there was a small debate about cancellation. One reaon given was that the producers were sued by Zorro Inc. I removed it from the article page as I have searched everywhere for any confirmation. And also the absence of any DVD and info in America on the series. That's why I submitted the picture because someone else might know. There is also the mystery of the horse's bridle and breastplate. it turns up in 1975 with Alain Delon's Zorro, then in 1990 with Zorro (1990) tv series and finally in 2000 on The Queen's horse. All three made in Europe. The only evidence is youtube but then I fall foul of original research as wikipedia has to be a copy of something somewhere else. TV and film is a minefield.REVUpminster (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see from this page you are very busy with disputes. Did I use the wrong copyright notice. It was wallpaper freely issued by the production company for anybody to download. And if you think the Popular culture section is wrong, change it! The official Zorro site have copied most of it so they must agree with it. I would appreciate an answerREVUpminster (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Film and Television is a visual medium and a picture is worth a thousand words, I know that's not original. I am sure you could go through the thousands of Films and TV shows and delete most pictures but It would become a very boring encyclopedia.REVUpminster (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is only orphaned because of your opinion. I have put my reasons on the talk page as the template said. I am not an expert on the politics of wikipedia, but it needs arbitrationREVUpminster (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thankyou, that sounds fair. Maybe put it back at 150px. I have had some experience of deletions with an article, not by me, about Texas HollywoodREVUpminster (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Images of Inferno

Could you please leave the pictures up on the Inferno page. I wanted to get feedback from the project members, users and all as to whether the pictures were excessive or not. Mathewignash (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use

You seem to misunderstand our fair use policies. Our policy on list articles allows multiple images. Certainly with serious restrictions, but I think they are met in this case. That you don't in this case is actually quite fair. But you seem to think that anyone believing they are met is some kind of an idiot who shouldn't edit here. I'd suggest you at work on the civility issue attached to that opinion and stick with changing our policies and guidelines if you think they are so far out of wack for the purely free content you seem to want here rather than debating them image by image. Hobit (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement, I do appreciate your respect (really). I do think that arguing that I'm spouting "tripe" and seeming to argue against this case because we "free content" when specific policies and guidelines show that keeping images like this in a list article can be acceptable is over-the-top. I'd ask you to consider the possibility that your view of preventing "watering down" could be viewed as an attempt to grossly wrench out non-free content where policy and guidelines allow it. We've allowed multiple images, when needed, in list articles forever. To argue otherwise, without explaining how in this case we shouldn't, makes it seem as though you think list articles shouldn't have multiple images and anyone who thinks otherwise is just crazy. That may not be what you were shooting for, but I think that's what you wrote. Finally, I apologize for my tone in my response in the DrV... Hobit (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi J Milburn. Listen, I'm really hesitant to bring this up simply because I don't want to get involved in something distracting like this. I keep running across what appears to be "patrol" activities on your part though, and I guess it's just gotten to a point where I have to say something. I don't have an issue with any one thing that you've done or are doing, but the overall pattern of conduct is, I think, what keeps drawing my attention. I'm honestly not sure what the issue is with images, or what authority you think that you have, and to be blunt I honestly don't care. Maybe your a lawyer or something... who knows. The problem though comes from the aggressive, and seemingly almost single purpose drive, with which you have been pursuing an apparent campaign to be the "Wikipedia image cop" or some such thing. I guess that your an administrator as well, which is all fine and dandy... maybe that provides you with a justification to view yourself as a "cop"? Anyway, I just wanted to say something, because I've honestly been considering talking to someone else about this. I'm really hoping that we can just talk it over briefly however, and everyone can just get on with improving Wikipedia itself. (PS.: This edit is putting your talk page on my watchlist, so please reply here and I'll reply here well. There's no need to split the conversation or use talkbacks. Thanks)
— Ω (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your specific concern is? Our non-free content guidelines (specifically, our non-free content criteria) are some of our most important policies, yet, sadly, are some of our most ignored. I concede that a lot of my work on Wikipedia is related to non-free content criteria enforcement, but that's partly because there is so much work to be done, and so few people actively working on the issue (I could count those actively working to remove abused NFC on one hand). If you feel I have behaved inappropriately in any particular case, I am more than happy to discuss that, but, other than that, I'm not sure what there is to say? For the record- yes, I'm an administrator, but no, I know nothing about copyright in the real world- my work here is related to my knowledge of our policies and practises. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two fundamental concerns that I have. First though, one point that I want to make clear is that this has nothing to do with the images themselves, or copyright (although, I freely admit that copyright policy and law is something that I have political issues with, just to provide a complete disclosure notice). My actual concerns here are behavioral though, in that you seem overly aggressive. I'm guessing, based partially on your comment above, that much of the behavior derives from a sense of urgency that you feel due to a backlog in a work queue. It doesn't seem that your out to intentionally piss people off, at least. The thing is, your edit summaries, the speed with which you seemingly "swoop in" to address a group of problems, and your defensive replies in some cases, all combine to present a picture of someone who is aggressively looking for confrontation. All I'm really suggesting is a small behavior modification on your part, just to slow down slightly, break up the work so that there's less of a patten (one image issue at a time per article, for example), and/or taking more time to explain what's going on with each individual issue. Believe me, I understand the sense of "there's a lot of work here, we need to get it done!", but the facts are that There is no deadline and besides, seriously, you're not getting paid to do this or anything. Relax, and do some editing you actually enjoy! :)
— Ω (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think slowing down enforcement will really achieve anything. My past experiences have demonstrated that slowing the whole process down is abused by others and often results in long, protracted and pointless discussions. I'm not trying to be picky here, but I honestly don't think I can take what you're saying into account without some examples. Perhaps you could point me to some of my own actions with a recommendation of how it could have been handled differently? J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's easily accomplished. First though, I wanted to point out that your statement above actually supports what I'm talking about here. Why are you attempting to take on the burden of owning the NFCC "patrol"? I understand being interested, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it looks like you're allowing yourself to become somewhat obsessed by it (and, I'll admit it, this is coming from someone who has falling into this trap himself. You'll just burn yourself out on it eventually anyway, but there's no need to allow it to get that far.) Anyway, a good example is what's recently been occurring with the Fox Broadcasting Company page. Again, I want to stress that it's not the images themselves, or the individual removals, but the pattern. You seemingly "swoop" in (from the perspective of an outside observer) and remove two images with nothing more then edit summaries.

What I'm suggesting is something along the lines of creating a process for yourself (a userspace subpage is easy enough to create on order to track your own work). Post a notice in the talk page to inform those who have the page on their watchlist to see what's coming. Give those editors (even if it doesn't seem like there are any, they are out there) some time, 3-7 days or even just 24 hours, to address the issue(s) themselves. 'Then go back and remove the images and/or delete them. The main point being that you simply allow some time to pass before taking seemingly (to those who dont' track the NFCC issues) unilateral action. I suggest that you don't work the main queue either, but instead make up your own. There are other editors out there, admins and non-admins alike, who can help. The point though is that you set your own schedule in order to prevent your volunteer time from seeming like a rat-race job to "Fix the backlog!" See what I'm saying?
— Ω (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't deny I patrol and work my way through backlogs. That's what they're there for. We also have new page patrollers, random page patrollers, recent change patrollers and so forth. We already have processes in place to appeal removals- for instance, when an image is removed, it isn't deleted for several days after it is tagged, giving interested editors time to fix up the article/image so that it is acceptable, or discuss the issue. This would make the "I'm going to improve this article in 3 days" proposal a little redundant. However, I do sometimes work like that- when I find someone knowledgable in a particular area who is also well versed in our NFCC, I'll often ask them to take a look at an article- for instance, I know a couple of people in the visual arts WikiProject who are more than happy to help cut down NFC issues where appropriate, and that is a particularly awkward area concerning NFC. By comparison, TV logos are much simpler- in the vast majority of cases, they just aren't needed. I also don't know what you mean by "the main queue"- what queue? I just deal with issues as I come across them. I really don't see what you're getting at here- don't worry about my own health or sanity- that's my concern. Do you feel I'm damaging the encyclopedia in some way? If so, please, just come out and say it. I honestly don't mind talking about it. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Do you feel I'm damaging the encyclopedia in some way?" ...yes, in a way. When things like [7], [8], [9] keep cropping up... "damage" is probably too strong of a word, but I'm convinced that your approach is overly aggressive and creates controversy. You obviously have a "type A" personality, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you should change that, but Wikipedia works based on WP:CONSENSUS, and the creation of controversy is anathema to any collaborative process. At the very least, laying out the specific problems with images that need to be removed should help prevent some of the pattern of recurrence that these images seem to go through, where they show up, are deleted, show up again, etc...

Regardless, here I am letting myself get all caught up in process again. I've said what I wanted to say, and I hope that you consider it, even if you don't do so right this minute. I'm going to take you talk page off my watchlist for now and do some actual editing. See ya around!
— Ω (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Askam

Greetings. Askam is an important commercial vehicle manufacturer. I see Askam and Ireleth is a good article, so I think we may create a disambiguation page for Askam. What do you think? Kaygtr (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PAAM image tags

Could you please remove the tags for deletion you placed on several images used on the Provincetown Art Assoc. and Museum page? The Museum owns the images and the permission box has been edited to signify so; the images are being used within their copyright. GromLs (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files
• Wikipedia:Database reports/Overused non-free files Black Kite 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I'd missed that, I was on holiday. I think they're the same report. Black Kite 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Young Dubliners

As you noticed, I uploaded an image with a typo and without the licence detail. I attempted to upload a new corrected image to overwrite the old one, but that caused the duplication. If you could delete the image with the typo that would be great, thanks, Phil aka Geotek (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes delete the Young Dubliners.jpg without the image copyright tag, thanks Geotek (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Beast Wars characters

You might want to keep an eye on that article. I just removed more than 20 non-free images from it, all but one of which lacked a fair use rationale for the image, and sub-articles exist on the characters. Of note; not a single reference in this article. Heavily in-universe. I've tagged it as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Be Here

The alternate cover is important. It's markedly different from the first cover (which seems to have been used for only a short time), and it's possible that someone might recognize only one of the two covers. Alternate covers are generally acceptable if they are significantly different. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I added a section discussing the cover art. My Google-fu isn't very good, so I don't know if I can find anything explaining when or why it was changed; maybe you can help? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I still think that it's important. Like I said, the cover art is a means of identifying the album, and someone might not recognize either of the two cover arts. I'd suggest taking this to a noticeboard, because I have been told in the past that alternate album covers are acceptable in most cases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WTOV-TV Image

Image re-readded with comment. Let's not be removing images that have proper FURs that in use in infoboxes, that is overstepping a boundary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First, please let's keep this all in one area. Secondly, as I have stated before, some stations do not yet have a secondary subchannel page. That is not to say there never will be one, just someone hasn't gotten around to it yet. The logo represents a subchannel in use by that station and like the main channel logo, should be listed. This isn't a "gallery" issue, nor is it trivia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion here. I hate jumping back and forth. If a subchannel page is made, yes. Until then, there is nothing wrong with it being on the main channel page. It isn't violating any policy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether the use of a logo meets our NFCC on one page has nothing to do with whether another page exists or not. It is either required on the main article, or is not. The infobox is there to show the logo of the channel, not several related logos. The logo of the subchannel belongs on the subchannel article, and if that does not exist, it does not yet belong on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that technically it is part of the main channel. When digital television came along, we had to add the subchannel logos. Wikipedia has to grow with the times. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Only the main logo is required in the infobox- the subchannel can be discussed in its own article (with logo) or in a subsection (with the logo inline if it is discussed itself) but there is no need for the subchannel logos to go in the main infobox- we don't do the same thing with corporations and subsidiaries, or with companies and the logos of their products. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then move it to the Digital Television subsection that is available on each television station page. Simple, easy, keeps the logo, makes everyone happy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, because the logo is simply not required. We do not place a logo whereever what it represents is mentioned- we place it in the header of the article subject, or where ever it itself is significant. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)OK, you can't say move it to a subsection and then say no. But really, if it isn't violating any policy, why are we discussing it? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I said "the subchannel can be discussed in its own article (with logo) or in a subsection (with the logo inline if it is discussed itself)"- I would have no problem if the logo was discussed in the subsection with sources, but I doubt any such sources exist. I think the best result would be for a new article to be created and the logo moved out. I do feel it is violating policy- I cannot see how this logo meets NFCC#8, and NFCC#2 could also be touched upon if you are arguing that they are both logos of the channel, and so both belong in the infobox. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this "discussion" of pictures you keep trying to push on everyone. Pictures don't need to be discussed, that's why they are pictures. But, if you are so gung ho on wanting another page made, you make it. It is easy to delete something, but it is also just as easy to create something. Create WTOV-DT2 (proper naming under convensions) and create it in the style of WTRF-DT2. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I am heading off for awhile. If you have any questions on the creation of the new page, leave them on my talk page. I will check back in in a couple hours. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the subchannel logos are needed in the infobox as they identify the subchannel and as the rationale on the logo says "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." Also i think WTOV 9.2 should not have a article as it only airs network programming. Powergate92Talk 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The words of the rationale are quite clearly talking about "the organization"- the channel. The subchannel is not the same thing. If the subchannel is not even worth writing an article about, I don't know why you're so convinced that it's so important we show the logo to everyone. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The organization is the station not the channel. Also all channels the station broadcasts are called subchannels not just .2 up so by saying "there is no need for the subchannel logos to go in the main infobox" you are saying there is no need for logos the infobox as the the .1 channel is also a subchannel. Powergate92Talk 00:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Semantics. I know nothing of the subject matter, as I have said. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you "know nothing of the subject matter" and you don't know what a subchannel is, then why are you removing subchannel logos and saying "there is no need for the subchannel logos to go in the main infobox"? Powergate92Talk 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The infobox in article A is for logo a, not logo a as well as logo b. Logo b belongs in the infobox for article B, which does not currently appear to exist, in this case. If logo b is going to be used in article A, it is going to need some sort of significance/justification- for instance, discussion about b in the article prose of A. The fact logo b exists does not give it the automatic right to appear in article A, unlike, to a certain extent, logo a. What the articles are about is not important (unless B = A, I suppose, but that doesn't apply here). The knowledge I bring to this discussion is with regards to our NFC policies and methods, not to the subject matter of the article. If I stuck to editing articles about which I was an expert, I wouldn't be doing much editing at all. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There should not be an article B as there is only 1 station (WTOV-TV) with 1 licence that broadcasts 2 subchannels (9.1 and 9.2) so logo b should be in the article as logo b "helps the reader identify the organization" by showing "the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" as the organization (WTOV-TV) has 2 intended branding messages in a way that words alone could not convey (the branding message on 9.1 and the branding message on 9.2) the article needs logo a and b to identify the organization. Powergate92Talk 02:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted your revision. If you are not willing to create the article (or at least pass it on to someone who can) and you have stated there is no NFCC violation (only to take that back to make a WP:POINT), then there image will remain. Get consensus before removing them further. Galleries, fine....this, you have no consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The non-free content criteria have consensus, and I've certainly never said these are OK with regards to the NFCC (no idea where you're getting that idea from). This image is clearly not legit NFCC-wise, as I have explained above. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You said in this very conversation. Now, there is nothing wrong with the image under NFCC, you have no consensus when it comes to infobox images. This is more drummed up copyright paranoia without consensus. Get consensus or create the article, simple as that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Quote me. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Getting a little snippy aren't we? "Whether the use of a logo meets our NFCC on one page has nothing to do with whether another page exists or not." Now, you have been given many options, move it another section on the page, create a new page, leave it be....but according to you the only thing that can be done is deletion. Which is total crap and you know it. You have subscribed to the new line of copyright paranoia and you are intentionally vandalizing articles that are not in violation. You backtrack on what you say, you refuse to do anything but delete. Try doing some work around here instead of clicking the deletion button for once. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Now I see you have your admin friends watching the page, that is nice and all, maybe they can watch this discussion too. I did what you refused and moved the image to the Digital Television section. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure what you want me to say. I have not backtracked once, and if you believe your quote demonstrates backtracking, I think you should get some sleep/a coffee. Your constant accusations make your claim that I'm "snippy" rather rich, and, no, I've no interest in writing an article about this thing. Get over it. However, I am not going to leave a non-free image lying around when it is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Only you say it is not needed. I ask again, who died and left you in charge? It is not up to just you to decide what image stays or goes. You have no consensus, you refuse to compromise on anything, if this were a paying job you would be out on your ass along time ago. You are not the end-all-be-all of images. Get consensus...or write the damned article. Try doing some work for God sakes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've explained my reasons, and you've shown no interest in discussing it. You'll note the image was also removed by other admins experienced with image policy. I'm sick of you throwing around the word "consensus" (have you already forgotten how wrong you were last time you tried to use that?) and I don't compromise because we have our compromise- the non-free content criteria are our compromise. I'm not writing an article about this, I don't even know what it is. If you ask me to do that again, I will ignore your comment. As for your other abuse, I really don't care. It's work enough putting up with this kind of abuse, and, somehow, I doubt I would have been fired. Also, somehow, I doubt I would have to put up with you. I hate to do this, but one of us has a clean block log, is an admin on two major projects, has written several featured articles, has amassed tens of thousands of edits, has no noticeboard history and is trusted with access to various things, including OTRS. The other... Well... If anyone would have "been out [their] ass", I think it's fairly obvious who it would have been. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever dude. Take your "I am high and mighty" attitude and bother someone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're on my talk page, you're shouting abuse at me, you're stopping me from carrying out the work I usually carry out and you're reverting my edits. If anyone's bothering anyone... J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't template you for it per WP:DTTR, but you and I are beyond 3RR on WTOV-TV. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I reverted my most recent edit. I advise you do the same, if you are beyond. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete picture

Hi, I need a GIF file deleted because it was the wrong format and looked pixelated. I have replaced it with a better version of a PNG file.

The file's name is File:08Menlo Logo 287.gif

Thanks. Tcy3421 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Question Page

Hello, and thanks. The page I was referring to is for a photographer Chris Zwirner, please have a look and pass on your insights. I thought that I had followed things correctly. It gets complicated. Also I would love it if you could pass on an example. Many thanks for

your time and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historywriter2001 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user talk page by  Chzz  ►  22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

1. Initiatives
2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
3. Charity status update
4. Other Chapters' Activities
5. Press Coverage
6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Boxing News

It's a little complicated; I think we'll leave things as they are. Thanks though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbflex (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)