User talk:Pd THOR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 JN Kellett Elementary 2 Replacing prod tags 3 Talk Page Etiquette 4 Contemporary Christian music images 5 Informing uploaders of {{no rationale}} tagging. 6 original template? 7 Re {{user}} modification 8 Formatting 9 Image:KSS logo.png 10 Broken Sword and Circle of Blood covers 11 "Sword of a Thousand Truths" prod 12 copyvios 13 Your user page's edit history 14 Hanuukah Harry 15 Fair use - Image:Weird-Al.jpg 16 your opinion? 17 UP 18 Scott Air Force Base (BLV/KBLV) 19 Optimus Prime image 20 Sorry / Into the Black 21 Ducati Logo Fair use disputed 22 Mr Burns.png FU rationale 23 On the Way to Cape May 24 Editing images 25 Faten Hamama 26 Star Trek images 27 OER 28 Fair use 29 Fair use - sandbox 30 Image:PTVM.jpg 31 My Pictures 32 Columbine High School massacre images 33 Proposed for deletion? 34 Don't ignore me 35 "Serves" category on USAF bases airport infoboxes 36 Stargate SG-1: The Alliance 37 Using popups to revert anything other than vandalism ... 38 "datailed" fair-use rationale? 39 Thank you! 40 Just a note 41 Heads up

[edit] JN Kellett Elementary

Once a prod tag is removed, AFD is the next step. Let me know when you get it active so I can add my vote. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

cheers. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Replacing prod tags

Please don't replace prod tags, they are for uncontested deletions only. If you want to "initiate discourse" maybe you should consider a less confrontational approach. Kappa 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true, and I don't reject the claim that I was incorrect in doing so, the {{prod}} tag itself says: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.". However, are you saying that you contested the proposed deletion of the article? Where? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)}

Just don't put them back, thanks. Kappa 03:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's implied by his removal of {{prod}} and subsequent edits. Still, a less "confrontational" tone, to use his own descriptor, would have been appreciated. --Scott Cranfill 05:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Etiquette

Why can't people wikilink the pages to which they refer when commenting on others' talk pages? See above discussion about J. N. Kellett Elementary School. --Scott Cranfill 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Christian music images

Several months ago, you removed some of the images from the Contemporary Christian music site. They certainly made the layout look better - perhaps you could say why you made that change, because I'm tempted to undo it. --Patstuart 22:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a while back, how tenacious of you. Anyway ... all of the images I removed are being used on Wikipedia under a fair use license, and as part of their individual licensing they may be used here "solely to illustrate the album or single in question". Contemporary Christian music isn't discussing these individual albums, just the "movement" if you will, that they're a part of. Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images, in describing examples of fair-use uses "cover art" explicitly: "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)" (emphasis mine). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)}

Yes, it was a long time ago, but I looked at the original articles and I realized they had the images, so it was only a matter of finding where the edit was. Anyway, I did just a touch of hunting, and I looked up Heavy_metal_music, which also happens to have album covers on it. I also noticed that this article was once a featured article on Wikipedia, so apparently the powers that be didn't have a problem with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a fight. Just discussing, and seeing what you think. --Patstuart 01:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I submitted this issue for discussion here (Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#policy_quandry.3F), and the general concensus is that doing so would not constitute fair use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Informing uploaders of {{no rationale}} tagging.

Could I get you to inform original uploaders when you place a {{no rationale}} on images? This notifies the uploaders and gives them a chance to correct the problem as opposed to just being surprised when it's deleted. Your thoughts? --Durin 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In theory, sure — no objections; but I've found in practice it's easier to tag the images appropriately and let OrphanBot (talk • contribs) make its automatic notifications. That you've brought this up, I'm assuming that an image was deleted that the uploader received no notification whatsoever? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 20:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)}

• No, just that I saw you tag some images and there was no notification to the user. I tend to do it, not trusting the bot to pick it up. --Durin 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original template?

You asked: "You added a fair-use questionability template to Image:VanessaV.jpg. You subst'd the template, and I was just wondering what the original template is."

The one I added on 2006-09-02 was {{fairusedisputed}}. On 2006-09-20, {{orfud}}. These aren't my templates, I'm not sure who created them. Let me know, by the way, if these should not be subst'ed. It's never clear to me which templates should be and which should not. --Yamla 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I knew you hadn't made them. Okay {{fairusedisputed}} huh, thanks. As for substing them or not; I usually don't for three reasons: 1) Since these templates are going places where they should either be deleted soon or removed after fixing, they won't be taxing the server much, or for very long. 2) It makes it hard to determine what templates they were originally (like this time). 3) When you don't subst it, it doesn't give you an error like {{afd}} and {{prod}} do when you forget to subst them (go ahead and try, they give you red errors when you forget to subst).

Hey, another question: After you've added {{fairusedisputed}} on images which are lacking detailed fair-use rationales, is there a CSD you put it in after a while? Or what do you do with the afterwards if that's the only thing they're lacking? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks for the barnstar! That's awesome, that's made my day.  :) There's no CSD that I am aware of. What I do is stick the image on my watchlist and after a week, remove it from the original article and replace it with {{orfud}}. However, there is a bot that goes around and does this automatically, though it seems to take a while to finally get around to the images. I occasionally find images on my watchlist that have sat for a month or more with the fairusedisputed tag. --Yamla 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re {{user}} modification

Hi Pd THOR,

You recently edited the {{user}} template... I typically subst {{user}} into {{fair use disputed}} when tagging images, only to find that the new modification precludes that functionality...

Apologies; for the time being I've reverted the modification, so hopefully all should be well again. Thanks for this information, David Kernow (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the assist there; I hope there's a way to include your formatting changes w/o borfing anything up. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Formatting

You went through an decapitalized the headings on your user page? You shame me. --Scott Cranfill 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

/me shrugs. I imagine you'll get over it soon enough. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Image:KSS logo.png

Hi Pd THOR. I see you tagged this image with {{fair use disputed}}. Could you give me an idea of what additional information you would like to see which would qualify this image for fair use on the page of the organization in question?

I’m of the opinion that the text in the {{logo}} tag does a pretty complete job of describing its use.--Bookandcoffee 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed this comment - sorry! The image is tagged with {{logo}}, correct; that licensing requires (as stated within the tag itself) "a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page,[...]". This image has no detailed fair-use rationale, and as such does not adequately fall under the provisions of fair-use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}

I understand that the tag requests “a detailed fair use rationale”. My question was – what additional information you would like to see which would qualify this image for fair use on the page of the organization in question? (Not including information already stipulated in the {{fair use}} tag.) --Bookandcoffee 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What would I like to see? Just your explanation on why you think this copyrighted image is being used under fair-use. I'm not familiar with the organization, nor would I necessarily believe that the image even is fair-use, but if you do, then just explain why. See Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale for some exampling. I hope I'm answering this well, if not, well ... just don't hit me. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}

I'm not going to hit you. But I'm not going to guess either.

• Do you want to know what the image is? It is a logo - as noted in the tag.
• Do you want to know what it is a logo of? It is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. - as noted in the tag.
• Do you want to know why it is being used on the article? It is being used to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question. - as noted in the tag.
• Do you want to know why I think it is fair use? I think it is fair use because it is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos

• to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. - as noted in the tag.

I'm unsure what other information you would like to see, unless you would simply like me to re-type the information that is already present.--Bookandcoffee 03:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pd THOR, I’m just following up on this {{fair use disputed}} tag. I’m going to remove it from the image. I’d be happy to talk about what other sorts of information you’re looking for in the summary. I hope I don’t seem too aggressive here, but I’m pushing you a bit because over the last couple years I’ve uploaded roughly 450 logos in the same format, and I want to make sure I’m not headed toward having to update them all, unless there's a reason! :) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd lost track of this one, sorry I didn't respond to your last inquiry. See [1] and Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 20:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)}

Well I can be stubborn, but I do sometimes learn. :) I took most of your text and will add it to the logos I uploaded. (It gives me an excuse to change {{logo}} to {{logo|Trade union logos}} while I'm at it). See Image:SIPTU logo.png. --Bookandcoffee 21:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Sword and Circle of Blood covers

Why did you put the tags on those pictures? Is it illegal now to have pictures of cover art on Wikipedia? cun 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the images (Image:Shadow-of-the-Templars-01.jpg and Image:Circle-of-Blood-01.jpg) with {{no source}} and {{fair use disputed}} because they are missing information which is required by the fair-use licensing. The licensing you tagged these images with says: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." These images are lacking both sourcing and a detailed fair-use rationale which they are required.

So far as I'm aware, it is not illegal to have pictures of cover art on Wikipedia, provided they fully meet Wikipedia requirements. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] "Sword of a Thousand Truths" prod

You just think it's bad: it isn't even WoW-cruft. It's a bit from a south park episode that aired about 15 minutes ago. Joyous! | Talk 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Even Worse. I wish there were a CSD for that, but it (and a lot of other articles that last longer than they really need to) doesn't qualify under any of the criteria. Hey, would you {{prod2a}} it, I'm not sure how helpful that function is, but I like to be backed-up and not seen as a deletion-monger. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}

I prodded the sword article again for you. Joyous! | Talk 03:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] copyvios

I see you've spotted some copyright violations! Just one thing...be sure to leave a warning on the contributing user's talk page. A warning with a template is automatically generated at the bottom of the {{copyright}} template, so you just have to cut and paste it. Happy editing!--Esprit15d 17:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks for the reminder, I must've just missed it. I don't catch copyvios that often. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Your user page's edit history

Your comment was "minor edit"? We knew that from the little 'm' symbol that appeared when you checked the minor edit box :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Cranfill (talk • contribs).

Oy vey, I didn't want to come up with anything more specific at the time and that's what came to mind. Go. Edit. Articlespace. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Hanuukah Harry

you want to delete hanukkah harry because it is fictional? SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is flatright antisemetic. If you delete hanukkah harry you have to delete santa and the easter bunny too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimwitz (talk • contribs).

Dooba-what? Ah, that took a while to find.

I don't find any intent or request for deletion, so I don't know what you're admonishing. I took issue with a lack of notability presented in the article. It didn't (and doesn't, for that matter) present any account of notability; nor does it seem to meet the WP:FICTION criteria for having its own page outside one perhaps containing a collection of SNL characters. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit I overeacted a little and that's why I didn't sign the comment but I do have to say this: Hanukkah Harry was a story Jewish parents told their kids a long time before Saturday Night Live copied the idea. So what I say is if all Hanukkah Harry gets is a paragraph or less on the SNL page then Santa Claus has to only have a paragraph on the fictional characters article. --Jimwitz 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If Mr. Harry has this illustrious background, then I fail to see why it hasn't been appropriately included and sourced in the article. The article currently refers to only the SNL rendition; whereas if this character has a more detailed, in-depth, and verifiable history to him, then feel free to expand the article duly. However, the only information provided about this character is as portrayed on Saturday Night Live.

You make an exampleless comparison to Santa Claus; possibly comparing their "worth" or "importance". Santa Claus' article makes and verifies claims to notability over seventeen centuries and whose verifiable history is so proliferous that it has expanded over several articles as per WP:FICTION, whereas Hanukkah Harry's article makes claims to being a SNL character and nothing further. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use - Image:Weird-Al.jpg

I hope the new rationale justifies the use of the image on here. If not, could you give me some tips on how to justify the use of the image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gromreaper (talk • contribs).

Yeah, that looks fine! It's not terribly in-depth, but nobody should have any problems with it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your opinion?

You asked: "[2]: A "detailed" fair-use rationale?"

I've added my input to that image page. --Yamla 02:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I always appreciate your input and willingness to back me up on these subjects. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UP

It's coming back but im going to adjust it and try and get the columns and sections how i want.. debating whether or not to add a little colour as well, hehe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought you were doing away with it completely. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Air Force Base (BLV/KBLV)

I went ahead and gave Scott Air Force Base a makeover, as you requested. Don't worry, it only took maybe 10 minutes total to create the image, upload it, add the infobox and change the MapIt template over to US-airport-mil. If you feel interested in the infobox, you can check it out over at the infobox page of the WikiProject Airports. We could use your help. Of couse, if you don't feel comfortable, just drop me a link to any article you'd like me to look over for the project. Thanks! thadius856_talk 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That. Is. Excellent! Thanks so much! I'm not particularly interested in airports specifically, but these two bases specifically as I've been stationed at both. Thanks again, excellent job! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optimus Prime image

I've updated the fair use rationale at [3] TheQuandry 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry / Into the Black

Oh my goodness, I'm such a fool. I misread that notice the first time, I thought it was the designation of deletion notice, the one where if it remains for 5 days, the article is removed. I am sorry for my foolishness. -- Ubergenius 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No biggie! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ducati Logo Fair use disputed

Hello

The procedure for items uploaded prior to April 2006 is to notify the original editor, which has not been done prior to removing the logo from articles.

The Ducati logo qualifies for fair use when used in the Ducati Motor Holding article.

I have added the rationale and will be reverting it to the Ducati Motor Holding article.

Thanks

Izaakb 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Burns.png FU rationale

How does this look? Green451 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Way to Cape May

This song is so ingrained into the popular culture (from back in the day when the likes of Bobby Darin and Al Alberts were popular) that I don't think it's ever been properly or sufficiently documented. It's had an impact on anyone who's been going "down the shore" ("down" to the southern New Jersey coastline) from the suburbs west of the City of Philadelphia, to North Jerseyans, and of course South Jersey. Let me know what else you think could be done to document this: what resources, etcetera, could be searched to further establish the notability of this song. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 05:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing images

When you set up an image to be deleted for insufficient references (I forgot to put a proper reference to where I got an image from with the tag, my mistake), could you put something on the user's talk page? I understand you're zipping through huge batches of image files and most of them are crap, but still. Thanks and good work on getting rid of unlicenced images. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With the majority of the images I go through, I'm primarily counting on OrphanBot (talk • contribs) to make the user notification once it removes the images from the articles they're in. Maybe I shouldn't, but you're right: most of the images are "crap" and are uploaded by WP:SPAs; as such, making the manual user notification is a waste of everybody's time. OrphanBot is thorough and rarely misses an image, and that's been sufficient so far. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, have to slap OrphanBot then. Anyway, no problems here. *smile* --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't smack it yet. The OrphanBot isn't that fast. What it does is: after the image has been tagged for a few days w/o being fixed, it removes it from any pages it's on and notifies the uploader then. You caught my tagging before the bot did, but I'm assured that it would have gotten to it in a few days — and left the notice on your talkpage then. Not a perfect process, but it saves me a lot of time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faten Hamama

Hi pd_THOR. About Image:Fatin hamama.jpg, I'm just using it in a draft. I'm gonna use it in the article when I'm done. Thank you. ↔ ANAS - Talk 13:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the image and I see the draft, but the problem is that you're using it outside of the articlespace. I'm not going to push the issue, but somebody else may come across the same. I recommend you go ahead and make the article, use the image, and just make tweaks to it from there. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek images

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why are you mass-tagging star trek related images. --Cat out 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Well, the majority of the tags explain themselves (rather explained, before they were all reverted): some of the images lacked sourcing, and the majority of them lacked detailed fair-use rationales. Aside from that, I'm not sure what you're looking for by way of explanation. Without checking, it appears you reverted every single image I tagged; the majority without explanation. I should think that that would necessitate explanation -- as neither explanation or correction was provided for the tags. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OER

Oi, how about you read what's on pages before marking them as 'patent nonsense' and having them deleted? I just spent an hour on that page, thankfully I saved a copy before you got hold of it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I Am The Namer (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 November 2006.

Okay, in order. I always read pages before marking them for speedy deletion, assuming I don't has no basis. By "that page", do you mean OER? I have to assume you don't realize that all speedy deletions are reviewed before deletion by an administrator; that means concurrence by the deleting administrator. I'm sorry you spent an hour on a page that was unrecognizable as an encyclopedic article. As for having saved a copy of it before I "got hold of it", I assume you are referring to "Zoids - the OER"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for marking that one too. >:-( Sorry I had to sleep last night before I could finish it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I Am The Namer (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 November 2006.

They look much better, and addressed the majority of applicable concerns. However, I replaced the {{unreferenced}} tags on both articles as neither cites any reliable sources. I don't know whether you removed them because you think you addressed all of the tags, or if you don't like it there; but verifiability is extremely important, and we need to know what reliable sources the article can be checked against by other editors for voracity. Much better job on clearing up the context too, that was the primary unintelligible quality of your original article that got it deleted.

By the way, you should really sign your posts on talk pages. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't first-hand knowledge count? I've been dealing with this line for nigh on 10 years now and a lot of what I have written is from first hand experience.User_talk:I Am The Namer

In a word: no. Without third-party reliable sources you have effectively written original research, which is expressly not allowed. With regards to these questions, I highly recommend you read the applicable policies: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

If you make a list of the Star Trek images you tagged needing fair use rationales then I will go through them and review them the best I can. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I'd like to thank you for making more of an effort at discourse than Cool Cat (talk • contribs) did above; with an accusatory tone and no reply, I was unsure of what course of action to take. See below.

These are all the images that had something wrong with them. The majority were missing detailed fair-use rationales, and a few were missing sources IIRC. I've linked the images themselves, and the full link to the edits I made to them at the time. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the preferred fair use image process. Those images were uploaded before the rule was implemented. If you'd like to help, feel free to add a rationale to any of the images. After all you are not a bot. :)

Mass tagging as you are doing creates lots and lots of problems... I know you are only trying to help and I more than respect that... For instance it is using orphan bots valuable resources on something entierly avoidable. Furthermore it is not "helping" anyone but instead cluttering the system. Someone will need to further review the case as a result. It is much easier for you to add a rationale rather than a copyvio template.

Hope this helps. And an additional note, I deal with 4 wikis, 1 wikimania 2008 bid, and other things such as putting a satellite in orbit. If you desire a response from me in a timely manner, it would be best if you also used my talk page.

--Cat out 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the tone of your remarks about me you have above. I am not the enemy. --Cat out 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The "preferred fair use image process"; I'm not sure what you mean by that. You're correct when you say that the images were uploaded before the rule was implemented, but that does not make them retroactively exempt from the rule, it only makes them inapplicable for speedy deletion. That's why I used {{fair use disputed}} as opposed to {{no rationale}}. As for "if I'd like to help": I can't add a detailed fair-use rationale to many of the tagged images as I don't feel they fall under fair-use. Instead of nominating their deletion in my belief, I'm only disputing it and thereby allowing somebody else the opportunity to provide their rationale.

Lots and lots of problems? The images I've tagged with {{fair use disputed}} aren't handled by OrphanBot (talk • contribs), only those which are violating the longer-standing and more important rules requiring sourcing and licensing for all images. Not having requisite sourcing and licensing isn't something I believe should be dealt with leniently and fully appreciate the bot's functioning with. Not having sources or licensing isn't "entirely avoidable"; unless provided by the uploader, this can be nigh on impossible to determine at times. Lastly, it is, in fact, easier to tag the image as not complying with standards than to invent a detailed fair-use rationale for images which I do not feel apply.

Congratulations. I'm very impressed. I need to vacuum my rug, drop some stuff off at Goodwill this afternoon, and wash my dishes; I'm glad you're keeping busy too. I'll poke you on your talkpage to let you know I replied here; odd, my watchlist seems to be working w/o any problems though.

I'm also sorry you don't like my tone. Communicating over a textual medium makes intent, innuendo, and subtlety difficult to discern. As such, I usually try to limit myself to facts and observations as I did when referencing your actions. Speaking of, as you believe in the propriety of many of these images: following your advice shouldn't you amend the images duly, as opposed to simply "rv"ing the factual and legitimate tags already in place — they seem to be appropriately placed, and yet you simply remove my efforts w/o making any of your own in their place. That seems counter-productive. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As a newer wikipedian you probably have a manageable watchlist. I on the other hand do not. I do not want to monitor the tens of thousands of articles and images I have been involved with unless there is a really good reason. I neither have the time or patience with that kind of a thing, nobody does so please do not expect it from people.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules are not to be followed to the letter. You should never be using alternative processes simply to delete images unless there is a serious problem with the copyrights of the said image(s). In addition, you are required to notify unloader of every image uploaded prior to 13 July 2006: Wikipedia:Fair_use#Exceptions. But that may not be good enough at times.

Among the images you have tagged are Kirks promotional photo used in an article about star trek uniforms as well as the show Kirk stared on. What is it there that is so hard to write a rationale about? The first two bullets of the template is met isn't it? We should be careful and slow in applying these newer rules to the older images so as not to needlessly compromise wikipedias content.

On wikipedia a key policy is WP:AGF. What you are telling me is in contradictory with it.

In sum, please share the workload rather than mass tagging any image you see without a rationale.

--Cat out 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 :^) A "newer" Wikipedian?: non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. When you say "rules are not to be followed to the letter", I assume you are referring to WP:IAR?

You say not to use "alternative processes", but these tags are developed and utilized for a reason: it then follows that using them in the fashion for which they were designed isn't non-standard. Additionally, who/what is unloader?

I believe this image would only qualify as fair-use for James T. Kirk, not starfleet uniforms or Star Trek: The Original Series which are the two articles it is used in. As such, I cannot provide a detailed fair-use rationale for those uses; if somebody else believes that this image can be legitimately used somewhere, then they can provide the required rationale — if nobody can or will, the image is both unnecessary and possibly detrimental. Am I assuming ... bad faith? I don't feel I'm assuming any intent whatsoever; I'm tagging images which are lacking required information regardless of whoever uploaded it or what their intent may have been. I can assume that the contributer had good intentions when they uploaded the image, but that assumption does not precipitate the need for such images to be corrected or later deleted. I usually assume good faith.

Finding poorly sourced and/or licensed images and then tagging them appropriately is an important process for maintaining the legal integrity of Wikipedia; I share this workload with many other users. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

With less than 5000 edits I'd consider you quite new. The fact that you didn't even notify me about your post shows your inexperience. Majority of your contribution seems to be nothing but tagging random fairuse images for deletion.

"rules are not to be followed to the letter" is not IAR its how we do things on wikipedia. All rules should be followed to the spirit not letter.

You have forced me to sacrifice valuable sleep time for something stupid with your complete apathy. Thank you. Although I do not believe you care at all for what I have to say but here it is...

I have tagged (copy/pasted) fairuse rationales as you practically ordered me to. This was MOST unpleasant for me as stated above.

I ask you, how am I supposed to discuss rank insignias WITHOUT displaying them whenever relevant? How am I supposed to discuss uniforms WITHOUT displaying them? Please use common sense when thinking about a rationale.

With what you are doing, you are not maintaining wikipedias legal integrity at all, you could simply add the rationales I have added rather than waisting my time...

--Cat out 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in case you are wondering the red links are my doing. --Cat out 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use - sandbox

Sorry I was trying something out and forgot to delete the sandbox. It's gone now Nil Einne 12:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PTVM.jpg

I have added {{magazinecover}} to Image:PTVM.jpg. If you see that someone has uploaded a magazine cover, it is worthwhile to consider whether the licence should be changed to {{magazinecover}}. Similarly, if you see that someone has uploaded a newspaper front page, it is worthwhile to consider whether the licence should be changed to {{newspapercover}} --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mayhaps. However, if I were to change the licensing to {{magazinecover}}, I would be required to stipulate under what fair-use criteria the image is being appropriately used. Since I have not utilized the images, I cannot provide a detailed fair-use rationale for why I believe they fall within the scope of fair-use. As such, I simply removed the blatantly incorrect licensing, and tagged the image noting it now has no license. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Pictures

It has recently come to my attention that you are "messing" with my pictures. WHY???????? What have I done to you???? what do you mean putting {{no rationale}} on some of my pictures????--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't really "mean" anything in particular. When I find an image which is lacking a source, licensing, or (if applicable) a fair-use rationale, I will first tag it as missing such. The usually, check for other files the same user has uploaded — logically that if they forgot (or didn't know) to put the required information with the image, other images would be lacking them as well. As such, I tend to just go through a given members' contributions and marking their images appropriately. I'm sorry if it seems like "targeting" you, I'm not really; I just ran across you, and "audited" your gamut of uploads. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just tell me what templates to put on which images and I will do it--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine High School massacre images

Yoooo... so, i noticed you removed the pixelization for the images, not sure why, probably some new guideline i haven't read yet, but i noticed that the lead image in the article is now way too small, all the other images stayed a good size, but the lead image just got very difficult to see and thus, requires a larger pixelization. Now, since I have no clue why you removed them, I wanted to ask you directly the reason why you removed the pixelization sizes and make sure it's ok with you to add back the 225 pixel requirement needed for the lead image on the article so it doesn't come off that small. What do you think? Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you tagged Image:Evacuating Columbine.jpg as disputed, but i noticed some vandal added a fake source to it, the image came from KUSA's news chopper, the actual source is at the top not the link on the bottom that was added by a vandal, if that is not why you tagged it then we can discuss it as i uploaded this image over a year ago and had Carnildo actually help me tag them so they were correct, perhaps there's some way to fix it as it's a very good image for the article. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

heh, ok, one more licensing dispute image, Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF, this one i didn't upload, but since it comes from the rocky mountain news it should be fair use, still, i dunno why you tagged it, so please discuss it with me as soon as possible to get it worked out. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing (and the gratuitous compliments!); no no no, there's no new guideline or anything. I generally remove right-alignment specifications because images align to the right by default anyways. But you weren't asking about that. I remove the sizing specifications because without them, Wikipedia will size them based on the individual users' preferences (this preference is located under "My Preferences>Files"); however when you specify the sizing of thumbnails, that overrides users' preferences and can complicate reading depending on the article. I, for instance, run at a 1680×1050 display resolution and size my thumbnails larger than is the standard because otherwise they end up being really small. But again, when images are specifically sized, that overrides my preferences and I end up with smaller-than-desired thumbnails in articles I'm reading.

However... You're right. With lead images, particularly in articles with tables of contents, it makes sense to size these images larger than the images to follow because it's also filling the empty space left by the left-aligned tables of contents. So yes, it's perfectly "ok with me" to make the introduction image larger. I again appreciate you asking about my edits, rather than reverting because you think I am ogreish.

Hello again! You beat me to submitting (twice), so I'll just amend here. For the former image (Image:Evacuating Columbine.jpg), I was really noting that the image was lacking the detailed fair-use rationale for all the uses of it. Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale says: "...each "fair use" must be explained and a rationale must be established for that specific use (i.e. every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page even though fair use is claimed on the image page)." Since the image is being used on April 20, 1999, and School massacre as well, the image requires detailed fair-use rationales for those too. Probably there is no rationale for them, since they do not directly relate and those articles (while probably linking to Columbine High School massacre) are not using the images to provide critical commentary or anything: they're basically just decoration there. And reading back, the same reason for tagging applies to Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF; it too needs a detailed fair-use rational for all of the uses of it; one for its usage on Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography is needed too.

Whew! Really, thanks for assuming good faith! I'm going to bed, now. Anything else, I won't get to it until the morning. 'night! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww... hey!  :^( — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I thought maybe that line would be insulting... like you might have thought "oh, so you only assume I may be a trustworthy editor" heh, so I removed it to avoid that (it's actually happened to me before), but you understood what I meant, so no worries, ha ha. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I think it's just better to dicuss and compromise edits and opposition with users rather than going about reverting everything one doesn't agree with, that just makes everyone get into dumb fights... and I've seen quite a few dumb fights. Being on wikipedia for two years now, an admin for one year, I've learned exactly how to deal with users, vandal or legit, when it comes to opposition... it just works better to get talk it through and compromise. On to business... Well phew, I thought there was some huge problem with those images and they were about to be deleted, because it sure would be a shame, but if it's only that the rationale is required for EVERY article, then I guess I'll go around and add one for every single article they link to (what a pain, lol), and do the same for any other images on there. I think the same rationale that it has now can be used for the school massacre article, and the April 20 article will be easy to work with, the pulizter article also seems real easy to fix as who would complain their image is being showcased on an article about the pretigious award it's won? So I'll get on with that tomorrow because I'm also going to bed now as well. Perhaps you can help with me them if you have time, if not then, then at least I got something to do tomorrow evening other than watch the Simpsons, sorry about the edit conflict, I'm just that fast on this thing! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done... check for me and see if I addressed the concerns correctly! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

YEY!!! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed for deletion?

Hi, My name is Luciana and I'm new at Wikipedia... I see you marked my first 3 articles as proposed for deletion, what can I do to avoid that? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask I just need some advice... Thank you very much (I'm talking about FreeRIP Vexed and Frinika). Best regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs).

I've explained on Luciana's talkpage about WP:SOFTWARE and what needs to be done to the articles if they do meet the criteria. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't ignore me

Help me sort out the images please--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Serves" category on USAF bases airport infoboxes

Here's why I removed the "serves" category on the KBLV airport infobox: AF bases do not "serve" their nearest towns in the way municipal or large airports do. Apart from the fact that there is no scheduled passenger service into/out of Scott (Space-A does not count, the denizens of Bellville are not able to walk on to Scott AFB and use the services of the airfield. I firmly believe that the infoboxes are not applicable to AF bases as the bases are not there to serve the nearest town the way civilian airfields are. I hope you understand my rationale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conn, Kit (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to sign. Conn, Kit 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I actually only made the reversion because you hadn't left an edit summary and I didn't see any reason to remove the "closest town" specification. I didn't realize that "closest town" then translated into "serves", and I agree with and understand you. However, since you didn't put in an edit summary either time, after you removed it again it was re-added again by somebody else. I would recommend either putting your rationale in the edit summary if you change ti back, or on the talk page so people understand why you're making that change. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate SG-1: The Alliance

I have removed you prod. See the pages tslk page for why. --Mollsmolyneux 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I have no objections, as there has yet to be any "official" cancellation. However, it may come to be that there may never be any announcement, and may be eventually considered abandoned. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using popups to revert anything other than vandalism ...

... is considered very rude [43]. Do not do it again. Proto::► 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No.

However, since you're here: you removed both the {{fair use reduce}} and {{no rationale}} tags from Image:CarusoMilos CSIMiami.jpg with the summary of "fair use". I'm aware the image is being tagged as fair-use, however both tags are quite relevant to the image's fair-use status, as it does not qualify unless the conditions I tagged it for are met. I'm not sure what your intentions were in your removal, but removing valid administrative/copyright tags w/o either a correlative correction or explanation could certainly be construed as vandalism. I have now unnecessarily re-added the {{no rationale}} tag to the image for the third time today; I fully expect you to take note of this and invoke a ban on me should I need to add it again due to further unsubstantiated removal. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, note that I occasionally accidentally revert using pop-ups when the edit was not vandalism. I welcome reminders about such. This particular edit does not seem to have been an abuse, however. It looks like Proto accidentally removed two tags and Pd THOR replaced them. The vandalism may not have been deliberate and this could have been made clearer with an edit summary, but it doesn't seem to me to be abuse. If anyone responds to this message, please copy-and-paste to my user discussion page as I don't generally monitor Pd THOR's. --Yamla 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I delete many images for failing to assert fair use, and am well aware of what does and does not constitute fair use. I didn't "accidentally" remove any tags. The tags were incorrect, and were removed deliberately. The image was tagged with fair use reduce - the image is not high resolution, so this tag was unwarranted. It was also tagged with no rationale - as a promophoto, being used to promoted CSI:Miami, it is fair use in CSI:Miami, and I replaced the 'no rationale' with the promophoto tag, and the rationale. I removed the image from the speedy deletion queue I was going through by tagging it correctly, as a promotional image. I note three other editors have also reverted your changes - the rationale contains the appropriate assertion, attribution, and the correct tag. Please, do not remove it again. Please also remember that using popups as a blind revert for anything other than vandalism is not what it is intended for. I trust you won't do it again. Regards, Proto::► 11:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "datailed" fair-use rationale?

Image:StarfleetSec.jpg. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This one's rationale is hardly detailed but I'm not going to mark it as a problem image. It is, after all, being used to depict what the article is all about, etc. etc., and I think it's probably fair use. --Yamla 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That, and why poke the bees? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Colin Walker.png. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is a replaceable image. He's a living person and we are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people. Marked appropriately. --Yamla 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ayaotdcab.png. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This image is being used solely for decorative purposes. Reverted removal of no-rationale tag. --Yamla 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your always willingness to look into these as an administrator; thanks for your thoughts and input.

The last image listed was tagged with {{no rationale}} on 2006-11-28. It appears that an admin (Shyam Bihari (talk • contribs)) has been arbitrarily?/accidentally? removing the still-pertinent tags ([44] [45] [46] [47] [48]) to clear out the categories for deletion [49]. Since the images linked afore were still lacking their rationales, I re-added the tags and thereby ended up replacing the images into Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 28 November 2006, which has since been deleted by Shyam Bihari. Thoughts? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to poke me when I haven't actually responded for a while.  :) There's some misunderstandings about using fair-use images to depict living people as it was a policy we didn't use to enforce. I'll try to clear things up with Shyam Bihari. --Yamla 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interim, should Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 28 November 2006 be undeleted, or should the images therein be deleted? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In situations like this (should the speedy tag be reset for today's date), I generally consider whether the uploader of the image was notified, whether it was a first offence or whether the uploader has a history of uploading images missing necessary information, and how long the image was not in that category. In this case, all signs point to leaving Image:Ayaotdcab.png in the category. --Yamla 03:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

My first barnstar! It is greatly appreciated. —Chowbok ☠ 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Concerning the no rationale tagging of Image:Scorpions-album-lovedrive.jpg, please read speedy deletion guidelines again. Especially I6. Best, feydey 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss checking the date on that one? Sorry, I was forgetting to far more often before, I still forget to check occasionally. Sorry again, and thanks for WP:AGF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

You tagged Image:ToCatchAPredatorNew.jpg for deletion about a week and a bit ago for lack of fair use rationale. I've since undeleted it and added a rationale to it. Thanks. theProject 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)