User talk:Pd THOR/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Section 31 2 +frame 3 The Josiah Rowe? 4 Machinae Supremacy image 5 Image Tagging Image:Horsfall Chapel and Organ.gif 6 Redirects for deletion 7 Memory Alpha languages 8 Stamps 9 re: spacing errors 10 A conspiracy to deny another persons civil rights 11 Image:KOKH.PNG 12 Overzealous image tagging 13 Image:All star.jpg 14 Image:RenaultAMCAlliance.jpg 15 Image:Trek Fish.jpg listed for deletion 16 The Indian in the Cupboard 17 KarenWilliams.jpg 18 Image Tagging for Image:USAF_HG_Badge.jpg 19 Fair use images 20 Image copyright problem with Image:TITANC.GIF 21 Speedy deletion 22 Dchozn article 23 Tagging logos with {{no source}} 24 Pigs is Pigs 25 Image:CareerDay02.jpg 26 Stargate Award 27 Please explain edit 28 Cs havana source.jpg 29 Image:BrookeMcClymontIDon'tThinkIKnow2.jpg 30 RE: {{ifd}} 31 Therion Confidential and Adisa Cizmic 32 Diogo Jorge Moreno Valente 33 Welcome! 34 Lexington, Kentucky 35 Source on image 36 Austin High School 37 Question 38 Needed work is done 39 incorrect tagging issues. 40 Kung Fu Grip photo 41 Image:KurtFishback.jpg 42 Google Paint 43 August 2006 Firefly Newsletter 44 untitled comments 45 Image tagging for Image:2006tcahq027.jpg 46 Perfect Kirby 47 Vandalized?

Section 31

Correct that it's not a location (I was reading it "Sector 31"), but don't leave it category-less. Cburnett 21:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the WP categories terribly well; so I dont't want to assume incorrect categorizations. || THOR 22:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

+frame

Out of curiousity, I'm wondering why you added a frame to the Chris Houlihan image at The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. Did you just think it looks better, or what? It's alright, I'm just not sure what the logic behind it is. Thanks. Deco 9 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

Sure, it was just a personal touch. I was actually just reading about it and the image looked a little wonky just floating there, so I threw the frame around it, previewed it, and liked it better. Worse come to worse, someone would have just changed it back not liking it and I would probably never know.  :^) — THOR 9 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

The Josiah Rowe?

Are you the Memory Alpha user, Josiah Rowe? — THOR ^=/\= 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, just a Josiah Rowe, didn't you hear I come in six-packs?

Yeah, c'est moi. I have this bad habit of being hugely present on different websites in succession, and then disappearing when my life gets too hectic. I'll spend a few months on Outpost Gallifrey's forums, then a few months at the TrekBBS, then I'll be at Memory Alpha for a while... recently I've been here. When my next show opens, I'll probably vanish and reappear somewhere else around January or so...

How're things at MA these days? —Josiah Rowe 04:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As for things going at MA, there's a lot of derision about Featured Article candidacy and so forth. But nothing phenominal. We're looking into possibly doing a Refit of the Week MA collaboration, along the lines of Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week.

Also, thanks for your continual efforts on the Serenity page; as a huge fan of the series and the movie, I laud your efforts. — THOR ^=/\= 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

'Tain't easy assumin' good faith on a fellow won't speak or give his right name, let me tell you. (Was tempted to start callin' him the Operative on the talk page, given the lack of name and all, but a) the Operative did operate out of good faith — that was his problem — and b) this guy's nowhere near as cool as him.) It's not very Christian of me, but I do find myself hopin' that this one will 'vert one more time tonight, so we can get him on WP:3RR. —Josiah Rowe 04:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Machinae Supremacy image

Thanks for letting me know of my error in uploading the Machinae Supremacy logo, though I'm not sure how to fix the copyright information. Could you perhaps give me more information on how to edit this? Or would it be simpler to re-upload the image with proper copyright information? -D14BL0 06:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to an image description (which you have on the image) there are two important things that really must be included on every image.

• A source: being where you originally got the image. This could be a website, a scan you made, or any number of other places. You just need to tell where you got it from.
• A license: being what permission Wikipedia has to use the image. If the image is something you took/made yourself, you may decide how to license it. However, if you got it from somewhere else, you need to know what copyright tag goes with it and apply it to the page. Wikipedia might not even have the right to use it, and we'd need to tag it appropriately. Just look through the Wikipedia image copyright tags and look for one that applies to this image in paticular. — THOR ^=/\= 08:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Horsfall Chapel and Organ.gif

I've put a copyright notice on both the images I've uploaded as requested adamm 05:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Excellent!  :^D — THOR ^=/\= 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

You nominated NCIS (television) for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. As stated on that page, you must place the {{rfd}} template on the redirect page to warn other editors of your nomination. I've fixed it now, but please note it for future reference. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How very embarrasing. I completely understand, and I thought I had added the {{rfd}} to the page. However, the page I listed on the Redirects for deletion page, and the redirect that I placed the template on are not the same. I have added the second redirect to the deletion page as well, and have acknowledged my faux pas there as well. Thank you. — THOR ^=/\= 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is really no need to be embarrassed about it. Keep up the good work! Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha languages

You're right of course, sorry about that. I never heard anything about an Esperanto version, but apparently Angela wants that and the Polish version to get up and running because she added both to the Main Page via interwiki links. Sorry, I thought the Esperanto thing was a bad joke. --Schrei 18:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No biggie! I don't take any of it personally, I have no vested interest in it; I'm just well versed in MA and remembered that those two were both listed on the main page.  :^) Be well. — THOR ^=/\= 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stamps

Um, US postage stamps like Image:West point stamp.JPG are productions of the US government, just like {{PD-USGov}} says. It's simply incorrect to say that it's unsourced or that it's an unsourced fair use. Stan 20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for Image:Wiki kentucky.jpg. Basically it's not possible to have an unsourced postage stamp. Stan 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think of needing the sources more as proof that they're really what the copyright claims it to be. If I were a creative person, I could have conceivably created both of those images and uploaded them as "examples of stamps" or somesuch. In that instance, they wouldn't fall under {{PD-USGov}} and {{USPSstamp}} respectively, but as something else; as such we need source information as a check against someone just taking images from "somewhere" and claiming that they're something they're not.

You're probably right, they probably are just what the licensing claims them to be. But in the interest of Wikipedia being on the rights of copyright law and its safety regarding the legality of WP images, both of those images should have sources with which to check their licensing claims. — THOR ^-=/\=- 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's such a strange argument I don't really know how to respond to it. If you're not sure whether something is a postage stamp, go to the library and look at their Scott catalog. Stan 16:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

re: spacing errors

"1024x768" was a rough guess. On any decent monitor resolution (I'm using 1600x1200), all paragraphs get wider and shorter, but not proportionally with the pictures. Hence the pictures begin to space out the paragraphs with large inch-or-more gaps between them. Most people run at 1280x1024 or higher these days, so it IS a problem worth considering. Putting a couple of images to the left completely solves the problem. And furthermore, I think they look quite nice like that. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still confused. I'm using 1280*1024 both here at work and at home, and I'm still not seeing any inch-ish sized gaps anywhere, the pictures just line down the right side of the article, and the text just flows normally in the left-hand side. Having checked this on several different computers yesterday evening as well as this morning, I'm assuming its a problem on your end, as opposed to the article itself. Could you make a screenshot of the problem, I'm really curious how this problem is manifesting itself on your computer. As for the article and the alignment of the images: I personally feel that it makes it look jumbled, disjointed, or poorly organized to have the images bordering the text from both sides, but that is far from being something qualifying enough to poke people in the eye over, so I'm not going to pursue it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)}

A conspiracy to deny another persons civil rights

What we have here, at USAA, is a clearly orchestrated and organized effort by a large group of people who are acting in concert, incognito, and against one person, to suppress the dissemination of information. I strongly urge the rent-a-shills who make no contribution and express no opinion - but who act in concert to intimidate and suppress the expression of what they acknowledge to be only one person who is expressing a considered and well researched opinion - I strongly suggest that you read these Federal Statutes:

18 USC § 1951 [Hobbs Act]
18 USC § 241 [Conspiracy Against Rights]
18 USC § 242 [Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law]
18 USC § 245 [Federally Protected Activities]

In other words, why not dress up in hooded white robes and gallop around: that is the only way you could make your activities even more threatening. You are hereby cautioned that what you are doing may be violative of Federal Civil Rights Statutes: and you may be may be making yourself liable to a civil action for money damages.

If there is something you disagree with at USAA, why don't you substitute your own suggested text: or even better, edit what is there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.198.62.44 (talk • contribs).

Image:KOKH.PNG

I got a notice from that OrphanBot saying that [[Image:KOKH.PNG]] had no source and I noticed you were the one that tagged it AFTER it had had the proper tv-logo tagging. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Returning to the image, I find you've removed the {{no source}} with a rationale of "That was dumb when the licensing IS RIGHT BELOW THE NOTICE!". You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the image requires only licensing or source when, in fact, all images require both. The licensing is most accurate, and I neither modified it nor removed it. However, there is no source data. The notice on your talkpage, the {{no source}} notice, and Wikipedia:Images all clearly state that source information must be included with the licensing information; not-explicitly for the purposes of being able to verify the licensing information as correct. I've re-included the {{no source}} to the image, as you have yet to provide one. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)}

Overzealous image tagging

I know what the image policy is. The source is already stated - it is a screenshot from the Spongebob Squarepants show (it does not need a link since presumably it is obvious where the source came from). I have rollbacked the removal as appropriate. Thus, it cannot be said to have "nosource". One needs to remember that "tv-logo" implies where the source came from, as it states "this is a screenshot/logo/promotional from such and such". If it is obvious where it came from, then please tag it as appropriate - that is, fix the tagging, not slap "nosource" on it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to prolong this by reverting your edits, but I will explain the verisimilitude of my actions.

Image tagging with a source is not superflous with the inclusion of a licensing tag, it is required in addition to a licensing tag. This is to ensure that the licensing tag is appropriate for the image, and allows editors to verify that the tag is correct. I, for example, have no way of ensuring that that image is what the licensing claims it to be without being able to verify where it originally came from. For the image in question, the licensing claims that it is a screenshot from a film (despite appearances); but w/o knowing where the image itself came from I cannot ensure that that's what it is. It could be a drawing somebody made, it could be an image from a website, it could be a screenshot from a TV show, but without a claim to its source that I can check/verify — I cannot know, and therefore the image is in question.

I'm not sure if you're claiming that you made the screenshot or not, but if so, then that needs to be noted, so that the onus is on you for the legality of the image. If not, then the image had to come from somewhere, and we need to know where, so as to prove that we're allowed to use it as the licensing tag claims we can. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)}

It doesn't matter who made the screenshot - it is just copying information - the middlemen do not have any legal onus. Also, avoid copyright paranoia. The worst thing is that we get issued a DMCA takedown notice and just have to remove the instance of the image. Now, it is 99% likely that it is indeed a genuine screenshot, a source that we have an article for. The verification is quite clear (especially with the watermark in the background). It is clear where te image came from - it does not have to be in a link. The licensing tag already identifies its fair use source - which is why mostly additional source information is superficial. I've deleted nosource images myself, over 400 of them, and during the course of that time I've retagged images which were overzealously tagged. Keep up the tagging work, but one should remember the purpose of the policy - to avoid legal trouble. There is clearly no legal trouble here. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:All star.jpg

I don't really know what you need to know about the source. Do you just want the website I got it from? I thought that since it is a single cover that covers it as fair use. RENTA^{FOR LET?} 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, under the stipulations of {{albumcover}}, it does qualify as fair use. But we need to know where the image itself came from; primarily as a proof that we're employing the licencing tag correctly. If you got it from a website, then that's all you need to provide as source. If you have any questions, let me know! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)}

It does not matter whether it was gotten from a website or not. A website is merely an intermediary source, and is not the copyright holder. Clearly, the album's ownership can be verified. The policy is to prevent people from getting stuff from google images and saying nothing about where it came from. If the source is identified, such as "it is an album cover / screenshot", then it is easier to locate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:RenaultAMCAlliance.jpg

I have removed your no source tag from the Image:RenaultAMCAlliance.jpg; the imaged was properly tagged as "Promotional" when it was uploaded. Stude62 13:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but the tag I added wasn't in relation to the licensing tagging. The source of the image itself is what is both required and missing. You say (by adding the {{promotional}} tag) that the image is allowed because it is a promotional image released to promote the company's work. However, the source of the image itself needs to be annotated so as to be able to prove the fair use claim. Without a source to back up the licensing claim, I can't ensure that the image wasn't, in fact, created as part of a art project on 1980s automobiles for Sean Mahr High School; in which case, it wouldn't qualify as fair use. I've reincluded the {{no source}} to the image, and hope that if you have any questions, you'll feel free to ask! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)}

The source has been annotated. The hard copy of the postcard that I have in my collection came from a stash of promotional materials that I bought at auction in the late 1980's early 1990. Stude62 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It took me a while, but I did find a web site where the image (altered with text) appears as part of a high school project. That the web site contains and adulterated version of the image (mine was original) does not preclude me from making a copy of my own copy of the material (one of 1,200 pieces of automobile advertising and promotions pieces from 1920 to 1990) and using it her on Wikipedia. That these pieces were designed and used to promote the automobiles featured in the ads, and were widely distributed, makes it logical that they would receive wide usage, and thus appear in many places. Thus it is possible that not I only I have a copy of the image, and the student has a copy, but that other collectors also have copies. While I appreciate your attempts to ensure that images are tagged correctly, please remember that published material, especially ephemria has a variety of sources. Stude62 20:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Trek Fish.jpg listed for deletion

— pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

The Indian in the Cupboard

Hi, could you tell me why you reverted my edits to The_Indian_in_the_Cupboard please? I have the book in my hand and the edits were definitely correct.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mahahahaneapneap (talk • contribs).

I'm in Hawai‘i right now, and don't have access to the book, but googling it gives me [1] and [2]. It appears that you're reading and deriving your information from the UK version of the book. I ... honestly don't know what should be done about that. I wasn't aware that Banks had changed the names of any of the characters between versions; I should imagine that a note should be made about the differences, but as to which should predominate the article ... I would stick with the googled results — but I'm not enamoured with doing so. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 06:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

KarenWilliams.jpg

Why did you tag an image clearly labelled as a work of the Federal government as lacking sourcing information? Simon Dodd 14:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Long answer: You're saying that Image:Judgewilliams.jpg is a product of the US federal government and falls into the public domain as such. However, if I chose to, I could say that actually I took/created that image and I reserve all copyrights to it, and as such it is a copyright violation on Wikipedia. Since the image doesn't have a source actually stating where the it came from, we cannot know that the licensing you attribute to the image is correct.

Or for the short answer: The image use policy states: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." Regardless, the image still lacks a source, and I have updated its page to reflect such.

Lastly, per your summarization of: "This bot needs its botty slapped.", I am not a bot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Image Tagging for Image:USAF_HG_Badge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USAF_HG_Badge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I'm really getting tired of all this userbox Naziing. What's wrong with fair use images on my userpage? What, is some moron going to come sue me over a little postage-stamp-sized picture on an obscure Wikipedia page? Come on. Why are people getting in a twist over this? I think common sense should take prescedent over Wikipedia "policy". -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I don't know what you would want me to say or do about it: the policy states x, and I was just telling you that your userpage was in non-compliance of said policy. Honestly, I didn't expect you to disagree/argue about policy, and I don't know what to tell you in response. Per the stated policy, you should remove the image from your userpage; however, as I'm neither an administrator nor paticularly ogreish, I have no intentions of doing so myself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 14:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)}

Image copyright problem with Image:TITANC.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:TITANC.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See Image talk:TITANC.GIF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 14:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)}

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:PharoahsDaughterPasDeFlecheMariaAexandrova.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "orphaned". However, "orphaned" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:IFD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that you worked on several of the images I tagged recently fixing mistakes I've made. I realized that the "orphaned" reasoning wasn't valid only after I'd applied it; the other problem was that I hadn't realized the {{db}} tags were restricted to the codes as listed on Category:Speedy deletion templates. I'm sorry for making duplicitive work with my mistakes; I just wanted to bring more attention to wasted space images w/o waiting the ardous (usually more than) 7+ days for an administrator to delete them. Thanks for stopping me and bringing it to my attention, I really do appreciate it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)}

Dchozn article

Hello, I'm wondering why you added the deletion tag to my article? Please do a Google search on Dchozn and you will find enough information to conclude he is a noteworthy addition to Wikipedia. E-sports and the like are becoming more and more mainstream and it is only fitting that we add forerunners of E-sports to the list. If not now then later because it's only inevitable. Dchozn will be doing work with DirectTV later this year in introducing a new cable television series showcasing competitive electronic gaming events and the like. I realize Dchozn himself has edited the page but only for factual clarification that was misleading on my part. Thank you and good day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyungjin (talk • contribs) .

I'm not familiar with DchozN, nor "e-sports"; but I do know that the page seems pretty light on its claims of notability. And as I mentioned on the AFD I instigated; your suggestion of googling the subject just brings up his own site, as well as several gaming sites of which he is a registered member -- nothing in the way of articles or citations for the notability criteria. I'm not intent on "shooting him down" or otherwise bringing down unfairly harsh criticism on the subject; I just need more than I myself can find to assure myself of his encyclopedic worth. As an aside, the article has only been edited by yourself, User:DchozN, and two anonymous IP users; the only articles edited by those four users have been the article in question, and Team 3D. To me, this seems suspect, albeit inconclusively. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 01:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)}

Your actions speak for themselves, there is no need to lie here. Perhaps if you took the time to check Google, or any other search engine for that matter, a bit more thoroughly; you would have noticed his namesake, as well as his works for that matter, are well-known internationally in the e-sports community - specifically the competitive gaming aspects of e-sports. Your claim that because you yourself have not personally heard of him or his works is grounds enough to warrant article deletion is outrageous and invalid. Have you recently browsed through the numerous 1990+ birth sections of wikipedia by any chance? Surely you have not heard of them nor their acheivements, but does that necessarily nullify their right to the existance of an article? Wikipedia is all about expanding the present day rather narrow-minded notion of an encyclopedia. Team 3D is a very real organization with a talented team of individuals working for them. Dchozn happens to be one of the pillars of this network with his video editing skills, and if you speak with anyone who even remotely considers themselves a competitive gamer, chances are they have heard of Team 3D and their movies. I will have a word with Dchozn on cleaning up the article to be more in line with a 3rd party non-biased view. The previous 2 anonymous IP addresses were most likely me, as my cookies are deleted upon browser closure, and am on a wireless dynamic IP. Had you looked at the previous Team 3D article history, you would see Dchozn and I have contributed in cleaning it up. Looking at your prior history of editing, it comes off to me as though you have little interest in expanding Wikipedia so rather than keeping it within your close-minded vision. With that said, if you are still so intent to impede our journey to spread knowledge about e-sports, feel free to petition an admin for a instant deletion. Good day. - Hyungjin 21:01, 12 May 2006

Yikes, that was unexpected.

I'm not sure what you mean by my lying, I'm assuming you're saying I didn't google DchozN. I did, but the pages I came up with were his own site, his membership profiles to several sites (myamped, xfire, gotfrag, team3d and global gaming), an Urban Dictionary "definition", a non-existant site, and a (really annoying, non-related) YTMND dchozn.ytmnd.com/ sub-site. Continuing on doesn't present me with any more supporting evidence. While (as far as I can ascertain) DchozN is certainly prolific online; none of these profiles or sites make any claim (other than his own) to his notability. None of these pages are articles about his accomplishments, and he's not been in the news (again, as far as I can tell). All I can tell online is that he is a prolific gamer, he is affiliated with "Team 3D" (I'm making no claim that he isn't), and his own site states that he is and has been employed by several online-gaming-related organizations.

In my defense, I did not say that he is NN because I haven't heard of him, I said his article makes poor arguments as to the clam of notability. I also do not have reason doubt his skills, nor his import to his organization; however, that does not intrinsically bestow or imbue notability. As for my history of editing, while you're of course free to make whatever assumptions you care to: I stand by my statement that: "I'm not intent on "shooting him down" or otherwise bringing down unfairly harsh criticism on the subject", I just question the validity of its substance as an encyclopedic article.

Lastly, please don't assume I take this personally. I disagree with you (and DchozN himself, I would assume) on the article's merit; not DchozN's. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)}

Talk about a self-ascertaining statement complex. Of course, because you are just "trying to make that little piece of Wikipedia just a little more "right"." Whatever lets you sleep at night, sir. - Hyungjin

Tagging logos with {{no source}}

You tagged the image Image:Wards-logo.gif as having no source. I had actually gotten this from a Wikipedia mirror (answers.com) because it had been deleted fro Wikipedia due to it being incorrectly tagged in the first place. I didn't include this info in the description because I don't think that really qualifies as an original source. However, I tagged it as {{logo}} and thought it was clear, both from the image itself, and from the description ("Former logo of Montgomery Ward") that the ORIGINAL source of copyright for this logo is the (former) Montgomery Ward company. In this case, I managed to find the logo in the Internet Archive [3], but I would think that supplying the name of the company to which the logo belongs would be sufficient for identifying the source. Do you not agree? DHowell 23:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pigs is Pigs

I don't know what it is you did, but thanks. Jason Palpatine 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heh. Sure, no problem. The problem was just that the {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}} template already includes the wiki markup for centering and sizing the image, all the template needs is the image name and it does the rest to ensure uniformity. Glad to help though!  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)}

Image:CareerDay02.jpg

You recently reverted edits made to this image information. Since it has source info and is unorphaned, I don't understand why. Please explain. CovenantD 03:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The image has a description and a license, but it doesn't have a source. According to the image use policy, citing the source consists of: "Always specify[ing] on the description page where the image came from, such as a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." Just let us know where the image is from: did you find it on a website, did you take the screenshot yourself, do you know who the photographer is (although, that doesn't apply here...), etc.

Just to tell you: the reason for needing the source is to verify the license. You could claim that the image is public domain if you wanted to, but without a source for the image, we cannot prove that the license is true. Make sense? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)}

It does. I'm still left wondering if you restored the orphan tag incorrectly, and how much detail is needed on the source, in this case a DVD? CovenantD 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I hadn't meant to restore the {{or-fu}} tag; I'll remove it -- or you can if you want; I'd forgotten that I'd added one in the first place, sorry!

As for the source, I'm imagining it's either a screenshot you found online somewhere, or it's a screenshot that you took yourself. If the former, just list the site wherefrom you took the image (see Image:USAF-CW3.png for a sourced website). If the latter, just make a note that the source is you and where you made the image from (i.e. a photograph you took, a screenshot you made; see Image:CSI Miami.png for a self-sourced image). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)}

As an aside: despite the fact that image tagging and stuff makes me seem like a total choad, I love Invader Zim. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)}

Not a prob - I understand that personal feelings can't stand in the way of sourcing, fair use and all that. I'll note the source and remove the tags. Thanks for the info! CovenantD 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stargate Award

		The Stargate Star
		This user has been awarded with the WikiProject Stargate's Stargate Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Stargate. For becoming an active member and undertaking some really tough tasks with enthusiasm. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW -- Congradulations. -- Jason Palpatine 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!  :^D — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)}

Please explain edit

I don't get the reason behind this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Jus.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=60239584

Why would you need further source? The source is the cd cover itself, obviously. bogdan 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, because Wikipedia policy (the imge use policy) requires that the uploader "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." I hope that answers your question. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 21:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

Well, not really. The source is put when it's needed to verify the copyright status of an image. In the case of album covers, the copyright status is known: the owners are the band and/or their label. bogdan 23:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is put when you're uploading an image; without exception. Why? I could postulate, but since I didn't instigate the policy, I don't know for certain and I'm not going to put forth my ideas. The image has to state where it came from, and it has to state why it can be used on Wikipedia. I'm reincluding the {{no source}} on the image's page per the image use policy; if you know where the uploader got the image from, please include it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)}

The image already has a way to can contact the copyright holder: it says it's a cover of a Justin Timberlake album. You can simply contact him! :-) bogdan 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We have around 50,000 album covers. I invite you to go ahead and delete them all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Album_covers bogdan 07:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cs havana source.jpg

Hi, can you explain why you added the tags to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cs_havana_source.jpg? I don't see any significant difference between it and this similar image uploaded for the same game. Kind regards, David Bergan 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against having the image; I think that's what you're getting at (although I could just be reading you wrong). Image:De train.jpg has its sourcing already listed, whereas when I came across Image:Cs havana source.jpg, it neither had a source, nor was it being used in any articles at the time. I wasn't attacking the image per sé, I was just tagging it so that people (to include yourself) would realize that it was missing information it needed, and add it. Like you did.  :^) All's well, sorry if you thought I was against the image, or Counter-Strike itself; I'm not. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)}

K, so I basically just needed the extra line crediting the game and its copyright? As you can see, I uploaded the image, and then made the page for it, so I guess the "not being used in any articles" part was just a case of bad timing. David Bergan 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically all you needed. With the source for the copyright, somebody can come along and prove that that copyright is valid for the source you provided — protects against copyright violations. And the "orphaned image bit" was just bad timing, sorry about that. I even thought about it when I did it whether it had been just "a little too soon" to think the image had been abandoned, but I did it anyway. Bad faith on my part, sorry. However, and I'm not "correcting" you at all!, if you do the article and then upload the image for it, you won't have that gap where the image isn't used and somebody else won't make the same mistake I did. Just in case. Thanks again! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 04:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)}

Image:BrookeMcClymontIDon'tThinkIKnow2.jpg

Sorry i did not wright more in the summery but the image is from the front cover of her single I Don't Think, I Know. I scanned the picture then cut her body out. Is that an ok think to do?. What would be the licensing? Lillygirl 11:32, 28 June 2006.

RE: {{ifd}}

I was only following the lead of its removal from {{afd}}... I'll put it back. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Therion Confidential and Adisa Cizmic

I hadn't seen Therion Confidential, but I looked at Adisma Cizmic. As the lead singer in Axa, which was the AfD I nominated and withdrew (they have a small listing in Allmusic, but it is there.), I considered her notable enough. Although on second thought, the Insight cover may be of questionable copyright. If Haris took the picture, though, could it be considered fair use of his own work? --DarkAudit 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okies, I just wanted somebody else's input to temper my own. As for the image: no, even if he took the picture which appears on the cover, the magazine's image itself belongs to them and they maintain copyright. Unless he owns Insight and their copyrights. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)}

Diogo Jorge Moreno Valente

I turned down your speedy on this. It definitely won't be deleted under any circumstances as this person plays for a professional football team, which has won the UEFA Champions League.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Between the rather nonsensical article content and the fact that I got a grand total of 25 google hits when I ran him up, it seemed to be either pure NN or rather fancruftish. As it stands now, it doesn't assert its notability (for that matter, it doesn't seem to assert anything aside from his occupation as a footballer), and is easy to see ... well, not much. I don't have any interest in strife over a Portuguese soccer player, and won't pursue its lack of content further. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)}

Welcome!

Lexington, Kentucky

Since there is a small consensus (two so far but the Cityscape has been up for quite a while) on the "advertising" - what is your best solution to the issue? I feel that the urban development is playing an integral part in how Lexington is building up - not out - in the sense that the urban service boundary is going to capacity and might not be expanded (see todays H-L). If you have any suggestions for rewording or perhaps its own dedicated page (which I had planned to do today, but will hold on that), please suggest. Thanks! Seicer (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can wade in then.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}

Source on image

Hi there, I noticed that you have added a no source tag to this image Image:Fat abi.jpg. The picture is a screengrab taken from a television programme called Celebrity Love Island. The programme is the source, which I have stated in the rationale. Is there anything else I need to include? I uploaded this image on the advice of an administrator, who approved it only today. Please see my talk page for the conversation. Gungadin 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning on it is that the image use policy states only: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer."; I adhere strictly to that and tag accordingly. I'm not interested in upsetting anybody, nor am I interested in an edit war. If you disagree, make the change back (and I'd explain it just in case anybody does the same as I) and I'm not particularly going to persue it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 00:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

Austin High School

no distinction displayed as one of ~27,468 high schools in the United States

Please review the article as it has been rewritten. I'm not sure if you are aware of the importance associated with offering the IB Diploma Programme, but not many schools offer it. According to the IBO, only seven schools in Alabama offer the program, and Austin High School is the only school to offer it in Northern Alabama. Silensor 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello You voted Delete on article Peter Kellogg and send editors to WP:BIO. How does it fail it? Please explain? ThanksTrade2tradewell 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Simplest is because there is no WP:BIO criteria of "being quite wealthy" or "offspring of notable persona"; which is the only information about Peter Kellogg that the article is denoting. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 13:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}

Hello and thanks for the catch. The article now denotes other important imformation regarding the subject.Trade2tradewell 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Needed work is done

Hello
Some work needed to be done on the Peter Kellogg article.
I have fixed it. Tell me what you think now!.
Thanks
Trade2tradewell 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be perpetually behind on responses, sorry! I presume you caught my vote retraction though; good work. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)}

incorrect tagging issues.

Hi, you seem to keep tagging the screenshots I have taken as having no source information, such as here Image:Pat Kielty cli.jpg. The source information is provided. It is the television show, which has been linked to in the article. The screenshots are taken from my pc from various downloaded material and dvd's, so it is not possible to provide a URL - none exist. When using screenshots, it is acceptable to specify the programme it is taken from as the source and give a fair use rationale, which I have done. I have sought the advice of another administrator, who also backs up that these images have been tagged correctly by me and should not have been listed for deletion, see User talk:The JPS/archive4#39 sourcing problems. Is there anything else you would like to see included in the rationale, in order to remove these tags? Regards Gungadin 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You effectively asked the same thing before; so I still refer to User_talk:Pd_THOR#Source_on_image. As for self-made screenshots, there is no prescribed way to source them: the image use policy doesn't provide any allowance for doing so. My prescription for sourcing such images (a few of which I have uploaded myself [4] [5]) has been to source the media I grabbed it from (the TV show or movie), and to explicitly state that I made the screenshot.

Sourcing the image is a check against the license, to prove that the license given is appropriate for the image. If only the TV show or movie is given as the source, that would require anybody to check the entire movie or TV series to verify it. Whereas if the image was captured by the contributor, stating such places the onus on the contributor should the licensing prove incorrect at a later date. There is no policy on this, and unless one comes about in support of one way or another, I'll continue to base my tagging on this logic. I'm sorry if this has proven inconvenient for you, and please don't take it personally, I'm just trying to make things right and safeguard the legalities for Wikipedia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)}

No its not inconvenient, I just hadnt realised from our last correspondence that you required me to add that I took the capture myself to the image page. So if I state that I took the screenshot personally, as you did, will that be adequate? Gungadin 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to intimate that I'd "changed my policies" or required anything different than I had before. I probably just thought I'd seen everything on the other image and didn't think anything else of it. Stating yourself as the source is the closest that I can think of for where the image came from; I think it makes sense, and I feel it fulfills the sourcing requirement. That way if somebody pops in and says that the image is actually their copyright, the Wikipedia community would look to you for an explanation since you're claiming where you got the image. Honestly, I feel bad impressing "my rules" on anybody, but I'm trying to look out for the copyright safety of the wiki. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks for explaining things. From now on I will add that I have captured the image myself on the description pages as well as the show it wastaken from. I do appreciate and understand your position. Thanks again Gungadin 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- there shouldn't really be too much emphasis on who captured the image. It should be considered really an optional extra: it might be beneficial, but the original source (i.e. film/TV show) is the source. An image without the "captured by me" info shouldn't be considered as 'no source'. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kung Fu Grip photo

What seems to be your problem with this photo? I took the photo myself, and it illustrates Kung Fu Grip in the GI Joe Hall of Fame section that I have been writing. --I am not sure how to sign my name, spider63.

Because the photo was used inline, and not with a wikilink, it was impossible to know it was being used in an article without your saying so. I have updated the image to reflect that is is used. I have also tagged the article as needing cleanup, it needs wikification so that all of your many inlined-images and links will reflect properly at their sources; as it stands now, the article exclusively uses external links for internal objects. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 11:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}

Thank you for pointing out these problems. I looked at the layout guidelines and what I saw was info on posting the actual photos in the article. Because I would like to upload one for each figure, I was thinking that it would be easier to just post a link with their names so that people who are not interested in a specific figure do not have to look at the photo. Anyhow, I will read that section more carefully to see how I can post the photos or their links properly. Thank you for explaining that. spider63 ^{| =/\= | 08:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}

Image:KurtFishback.jpg

I've added rationale for use of this book cover to the photo -- please let me know if you think this satisfies the requirements of fair use. SteveHopson 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would make it more ... well, more. What you added was what you're using it for. What the fair-use rationale needs is why Wikipedia may use it in the manner you have. I would reccomend checking Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale for examples. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}

Google Paint

I've put Google Paint up for AfD, then.--Prosfilaes 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 01:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)}

August 2006 Firefly Newsletter

The August 2006 issue of the Firefly WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

untitled comments

Excuse me that information is the facts they came from brent spiner , i am telling the truth.

Thanks, Jkress613

MySpace is not a reliable source and may not be cited as such. Therefore, the information you're continuing to propogate is unsourced and may not be included as such. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)}

all the information is the facts from brent spiner, i realy cant beleive you people dont belive me im not lieing ok, now stop changing my edits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkress613 (talk • contribs).

This is not a matter of belief, but a matter of what is acceptable according to policy. Per policy (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources), My Space is not a reliable source for Wikipedia encyclopedic information: it may not be used whether it is believed true or not.

Furthermore, while applying that information in this fashion is not allowed; doing so repeatedly as you have is in flagrant violation of policy (WP:3RR). Doing so continually will result in a semi- or permanent ban from Wikipedia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)}

Image tagging for Image:2006tcahq027.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2006tcahq027.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh bitter irony, you rear your head once again. I uploaded the original version of the image, as it originally contained a copyright notice within it; this was to effectively force the issue of copyrighting of the image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)}

Perfect Kirby

I'm inclined to agree. Number of views and awards from the website on which it is hosted do not constitute notability under WP:WEB. I tagged it for AFD only to find that it's reposted content. I've tagged it as speedy and I'll leave a note on the author's page. -- Merope 15:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized?

When was your user page vandalized? --Scott Cranfill 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APd_THOR&diff=43340173&oldid=42882896 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APd_THOR&diff=43444446&oldid=43343579. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 06:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)}

Oh yeah... --Scott Cranfill 03:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)