User talk:Lmcelhiney/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Rshell2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rshell2.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peyton Manning

There have recently been a series of edits to the article that are a byproduct of a dispute elsewhere on Wikipedia and long story short, I reverted an editor per WP:DENY. I don't have any history with this article though and if I've reverted to the wrong version I welcome someone with a history on this article fixing this. I've noticed you have edited this article, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and feel free to revert me if necessary. basically the change is between 3 stat external links and 5. Anyway, your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks!--Isotope23 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the vote in the MilHist elections! I look forward to working with you in the year ahead regardless of who gets the coordinator and assistance coordinator positions. Onwards to adventure! --Petercorless 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Japanese text

Hi. Why did you remove the Japanese text and translations from Get a Mac? I go to Wikipedia when I don't know something, and I think a lot of people do so too. I really think if a non-Japanese speaker heard the Network ad and went here and found no translation, he would be confused. - 24.185.117.0 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi 24.185.117.0,

I removed the Japanese text because:

  • I was making a bold edit to reduce the size of the article.
  • Several of the sections of "Japanese text" were marked with "sp?" indicating that the editor did not know if they were correct.
  • The text was disproprtionately large compared to other listed synopses.
  • The advertisement was for an English-speaking audience. It was meant to provide sufficient information through context or translation.
  • The advertisement was no longer in service based on an editor's statement, hence some of the information was moot.

I've included both the old and new versions below for comparison by all:

(Original) Network — Mac and PC hold hands to demonstrate their ability to network with each other. A Japanese woman, representing a new digital camera, enters and takes Mac's hand. Mac introduces himself with the standard Japanese (sp?) Hajimemashite, yoroshiku onegaishimasu. ("Hello, nice to meet you.") PC questions the fact that Mac can "speak her language", and Mac replies that everything "just kinda works wiith a Mac." She then hands Mac a digital print, which he thanks her by saying Arigatou ("Thank you"). After handing him the digital print she asks Mac, referring to PC, (sp?) Ne ne ne, dare ano ossan, Otaku pokunai? ("Hey, who's that man? He's geeky, isn’t he?") PC is utterly confused, and says to the Japanese product, Buon giorno ("Good Day" in Italian) in futile attempt to converse. (Part of the "geeky" line appears to be chopped in the on-line movie, making it sound like Darren, although the word "Dare" (who) is clearly audible.) With the introduction of "Surgery", this ad disappeared from the website.

(Revised)

  • Network — Mac and PC hold hands to demonstrate their ability to network with each other. A Japanese woman, representing a new digital camera, enters and takes Mac's hand. Mac introduces himself with the standard Japanese for "Hello, nice to meet you." PC questions the fact that Mac can "speak her language" and Mac replies that everything "just kinda works with a Mac." She then hands Mac a digital print, for which he thanks her by saying Arigatou ("Thank you"). After handing him the digital print she asks Mac in Japanese (referring to PC) "Hey, who's that man? He's geeky, isn’t he?" PC is utterly confused, and says to the Japanese product, Buon giorno ("Good Day" in Italian) in futile attempt to converse.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:BTLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:BTLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Cieneguilla

Hi Larry. I really appreciate your help. Cheers. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colts images

The reason I put them back at 150 is because, unlike an rounded logo, this size doesn't make the article ugly, it looks just fine. No real reason to have it at 100 in my mind Soxrock 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree with your analysis, because the logos are significantly larger than similar logos of other teams--even the 100px appears to be larger than a number of teams. A common interpretation of fair use image size is: The image is no larger, and of no higher quality, than required for its use in articles. I do understand your feelings about what "looks good to you", however. Please try to look at comparable logo sizes on other articles for a comparison. Thanks for considering an alternate approach. Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laws of war

Killings within the laws of war are not massacres. That is the whole point of the laws of war, killing the enemy within the laws of war is not a crime. If you want to include aerial bombardment in the list then please provide an verifiable reliable source that aerial bombardment was a war crime. It is up to the editor who wishes to include it to provide such sources if requested and I am requesting them. (but see the talk page for more on this). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

I believe that the article is looking for:

Below is a list of incidents that either meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labeled as massacres, though they may not be on the same scale.

This really doesn't define the method of the massacre. I am not pushing aerial bombardment as a war crime, so please don't make that suggestion. I simply look at the list as see the Atomic Bombing (aerial bombardment) in Japan is on the list and see that others, such as Dresden is removed. I don't understand and would be pleased to have your insight.

My suggestion, as before, would be to include them in a separate section or color scheme, since the did occur and many believe them to fall in the definition above. Not that anyone is asking for them to be or have been considered war crimes.

Thanks for listening.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Grossman tripping or not

I enjoy edit wars as little or less than the next guy, so maybe we can talk this out here, one Colts fan to another.

I, personally, don't dispute that, on the play in question, Grossman's feet got tangled up. What I dispute are the following points:

  1. That you can cite this as fact. The entire summary, as it stands, is basically highlights from the gamebook, which is cited. I got in a long discussion with the guy who put up an "original research" tag on the section a bit back. You can look that up if you're curious. I though he was being quite overzealous, but at the core he has a solid point. The fact that you and I agree we saw this doesn't mean that it's verifiable. (As a side point, I don't really think anything Phil Simms said counts as an expert opinion.)
  2. That noting this tripping is either relevant, or gives the reader an accurate impression of the play. My recollection of the play is that McFarland created pressure, Grossman attempted to avoid it, tripped slightly, and got sacked. The trip was CAUSED by McFarland's pressure, and it's not clear that Grossman would have been able to avoid a sack (or an intentional grounding penalty) even if he had not stumbled slightly. Noting the tripping implies that this was primarily a negative play by Grossman, and McFarland was merely a fortunate bystander. In my opinion it was more of a positive play by McFarland, or if you prefer, a negative play by the Bears' interior offensive line. I think adding the phrase creates an inaccurate impression of the play. (Now, the next play, THAT was Grossman's fault.)

My second point is, of course, just my opinion. You're welcome to disagree. But the fact that we can disagree, and there's no cited source to back either of us up, makes me consider this phrase a poor addition. Regards, Atarr 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to back up what I'm saying here - here is the commentary on the play from the FIRST game summary I looked at, from ESPN.com:
Defensive tackle Anthony McFarland, with a spin move reminiscent of Dwight Freeney, sacked Grossman for an 11-yard loss.
No mention of tripping at all. - Atarr 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I concede your points. You are right that there was a failure of the front line or it would never have happened. Also, that the "tripping" is really relevent. Sometime I think that we overanalyze these things too much! Thanks for getting back with me with such a sound response. Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All those images you just tagged.

Isn't {{logo}} a Fair Use Rationale? *Mishatx*-In\Out 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a copyright category, and it also says: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page#Fair use rationale, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." (These images are being pulled from a site where the images retain their original copyright and that is not being listed, either.) Lmcelhiney 05:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
gotcha. I fall asleep before I reach the ends of those long-winded boxes. Although it does seem odd that a box that explains why this is fair use then asks the uploader to explain why it's fair use. *Mishatx*-In\Out 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos and Uniforms

Lmcelhiney, the logos and uniforms section of the Colts page with the tabled images are ugly. They are downsized, and the text is too far down. The reverted and current version needs to keep it that way. Please. Soxrock 16:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way. If you would allow me to have reduced the size of the logos to something more appropriate for this section, then I would believe that it would have been acceptable. Your current version has logos which are as large as the only picture on the article. This is not the purpose of a logo image. In fact, the the only logo that really needs to be there is the one in the Infobox. There is so little added information by the shift in blue as to be non-notable.

If you really wanted to improve the article, you could find some fair use images which could added to the article as many of the team sites have.

Please let me know what you want to do.

Thanks,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags on images

What's going on? Suddenly there are tags everywhere. Can that stop, because it's been fine for now, why is it bad now? Crazy Canadian 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the fair use guidelines.

These images do not state their copyright holder. It is NOT copyright sportslogos.net and it came from sportslogos.net. They specifically state on their website that they are not the copyright holder and cannot grant permission for use.

Second, many of these images do not have fair use rationale, "why" they can be used as fair use. Please read the copyright notice on each of the images. It requires the Uploader to provide a rationale.


Third, please do not remove these tags without resolving the issues and communicating them on the talk page. Simply putting a comment in the edit summary is not adequate.


Thanks for your interest in helping.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok

1) The copyright is in the boxes, (a.k.a. the Charles Gibson photo was seen on the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which makes it their copyright, as far as I know)

2) The reason WHY they can be used in their current capacities is because is shows them during their playing career, which is now an impossible to recreate thing. It also fills the image void in the player box

3) Sorry, but I removed the tags because in those edit summaries I had put down everything that mattered as far as I know

Take care,

 Soxrock (Talk) 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that you might have me partially confused with someone else who is remarking on your photograph uploads. I have only been active with you on "fair use" images of LOGOs.

I believe that there is a solution to all of this...

Regarding the Fair Use Rationale, here is something which I have effectively used to keep images online:

User: lmcelhiney asserts that the limited use of this copyrighted image in Wikipedia articles directly pertaining to it is a fair use of the image, for the following reasons:

   * It was provided by ___________ as a promotional image.
   * No free-license alternatives are available that convey the same information.
   * The image is no larger, and of no higher quality, than required for its use in articles.
   * It is used in Wikipedia only for educational purposes and is not used for profit.
   * Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder.
   * Its use on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright to its holder.

This seems to answer all of the questions...

Next, Copyright holder. It is "obvious" who holds the copyright, but we know that it is not the website where you originally obtained them. They specifically state that they are not the copyright holder and cannot grant permission for use. I believe that a statement which identifies the copyright holder as part of your comments is all that is required along with the location where you obtained the image (which need not be an URL).

Finally image size. Your images are very large. Of course, they look nice when reduced to the 100-300px range, but the problem is that to remain in fair use, the uploaded image must be small and low resolution. Anyone can legally pull images off of WikiPedia and use them for any purpose (including modification). Please reduce the size of the image before you upload it (physical size, not file size) to keep WikiPedia out of trouble.

If we can come to a consensus on this, I believe that most of the complaints and warnings which you have been getting on your talk pages will go away. I believe that User:Mecu would help on this as well.

Please, let's get this resolved so that we can all go out and do other things!

Thanks for listening and take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to questions on my talk page about fair use

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for a few nights. All images should have a source, but it may not be a URL, but knowing where the image was obtained is important. The rationale for logos is fairly obvious, but the tag alone is not enough. Be sure to check the original upload date as if it was uploaded prior to May 4, 2006, it cannot be speedily deleted because of no rationale. Sending through IFD is fine (I asked, and this is what I was told to do with them). I'm quite familiar with the other users that you mentioned, and I realized that, for some of these images, I was "arguing" over whether it should be 300px wide max or 338px wide max. Does 38px really matter? My thought would also go for the 150 vs. 100 in the article. It's such a minute detail, it's not that important. I think all fair use images should be 300px wide max. I even tried to get that inserted into the policy, but I only got 2 supports, 2 opposes and a bunch of neutral comments. Whatever the original size is, it should be reduced before uploading to Wikipedia. Image size edit wars, especially over what size we retain of the file (and less perhaps what is displayed in an article) shouldn't be such a concrete number (like 300px!). But just generally known that if the original file is 2000x1000, we should probably only have at most a 500x250 (though I would say 300xwhatever, but 300, 500, eh). The fair use requiring saying who is the copyright holder isn't that important for these logos, as it should be fairly obvious who the copyright holder is (or who we assume it is). The season template can restrict and force a default size, but it can be easily beaten by those who know the tricks to get around them. All logos are different ratios, so forcing a standard size isn't probably a good idea either. WP:IMAGE states 550px max for any image, but images used alongside text (which is nearly all images on WP) should be 300px or less (hence my 300px rule above), but control by article creators are given wide latitude in deciding what is appropriate, based on the individual image. I hope I've answered all of your questions, if not, forgive me as I'm really tired. Welcome to the Fair Use world. (You could checkout the Wikiproject I created that I'm trying to have deal with all image related problems, see WP:IMG).) Good luck! --MECU≈talk 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mecu, Thanks for the response! I have been busy in the meantime--maybe not exactly in the way that you'd have recommended. Please see my "Image Tagging" responses above. I would be very pleased to work with you in this area and have some questions, but your pages provided me with a lot of help in templates, etc., in your absence. Let's talk! Take care, Larry Lmcelhiney 21:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons User Assertion

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Lmcelhiney Lmcelhiney 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Hi there

While these logos are technically invalid, and my approval and reapproval from Creamer's website isn't enough (he doesn't own the logos) I still think they should stay their respective sizes. I, sadly, down have a downscaling program, and you can't reduce jersey sizes, because that Falcons uniform is ugly. Please tell me if you, or MECU, have any problems with that. Soxrock 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, even though some of my uploaded images have some tags saying they can be deleted, can you help make sure they don't. I know that Creamer doesn't own copyrights, but that's the site it was found on, AND they are used in the proper sectopms om a;; articles. So those tags in my mind are irrelevant. Hope to here from you soon. Crazy Canadian 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) ---

[edit] Fair use rationale.

Hi Soxrock,

I have modified the Cleveland Browns helmet image with fair use rationale per our discussions:

Place a simple description at the beginning without any further copyright or location information:

Cleveland Browns helmet image (2006)

Then place the following statement (with modifications) as shown (remove the "nowiki" tags and leave the comments, if you want to make the rationale usable for others):

User:Soxrock asserts that the limited use of this copyrighted image in Wikipedia articles directly pertaining to it is a fair use of the image, for the following reasons:

  • It is of the logo, helmet or uniform of an NFL team <!-- Substitue other sport (i.e. NBA, MLB, etc.)-->which retains the copyright.
  • It was obtained from the Sportslogos.net website <!-- Substitute with actual website location name (not URL)--> which serves only to collect and archive these images.
  • No free-license alternatives are available that convey the same information.
  • The image is no larger, and of no higher quality, than required for its use in articles. <!-- To use this statement, you must downscale images which are significantly larger than that which will be placed in the article. -->
  • It is used in Wikipedia only for educational purposes and is not used for profit.
  • Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder.
  • Its use on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright to its holder.



Of course, you will still need to resolve the image size issue, as that puts WikiPedia in a difficult postion.

In future, just place all of the information in the box when you upload an image, along with the "logo" tag.

Hope that this helps.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 14:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very strange

Why is it that when I view my complete watchlist, I see a number of redlinks to "articles" I have never edited or seen, such as: "‎Larry Sanger smokes a large, juicy wikicock (Talk)" and "‎National Socialist German Workers Party ON WHEELSS!!! (Talk)" Adam Carr 06:50, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Move vandals. We seem to have inherited WOW from Wikipedia. Just tick the box next to them to delete from your list. Neville English | Talk 07:34, 25 February 2007 (CST)

How can "vandals" make articles I have never edited or even looked at appear on my watchlist? This is a bug, not just vandalism. Adam Carr 07:37, 25 February 2007 (CST)

The vandals use(d) the 'Move page' function. (I think that I read that only editors and above can move pages now, as a response to this problem.) When that happens, the newly created page gets added to your watch list, along with the original article. When the constables set things back the way they were originally, and delete the offending newly created article it gets left on your watch list, and you have to delete it manually. This happens on Wikipedia as well. If you consider it a bug that deleted pages get left on watch lists, then the appropriate thing to do is to report it on source forge so that the MediaWiki developers consider it, and if they think it appropriate they will build it into a new release of the wiki source code. Neville English | Talk 08:06, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I'm sorry but I still don't understand. How can an article get on my watchlist unless I put it there? How can articles I have never edited or even looked at get on my watchlist? This never happened at WP. Adam Carr 10:21, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Apologies to Larry for cluttering up his page. (This probably belongs somewhere else.) However, this is probably one of the most watched pages, so it may dispel some confusion.
Step 1: you edit a page, or press 'Watch this page'.
Step 2: a vandal uses the 'Move page' button to rename the page that is on your watchlist. This creates a new page (with a strange title that you've never seen before) that gets added to your watchlist because the 'Move page' functionality assumes that you are still interested in the contents even though it has a new title. A redirect replaces the original article (which is also still on your watchlist). (This applies to both the main page and the talk page.)
Step 3: a constable comes along and clears up the mess by moving the page with the funny title back whence it came. The constable then deletes the article with the funny title, but the deletion function does not clear the entry from your watchlist. Et voila: random titles on your watchlist.
With the skin (page layout) that I have chosen using preferences, I now see a gap between 'Stop watching' and 'Discuss this page' in the list of functions: YMMV. This is where the 'Move page' function used to appear on the list of actions. I think it did happen on Wikipedia, but the page move vandals were a relatively recent occurrence. Neville English | Talk 10:49, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Interesting vandalism from CZ--Lmcelhiney 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Hello Lmcelhiney. Thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce. I am now a coordinator. Please feel free to approach me if you need any help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denver Broncos Pic

Thanks for filling me in on the whole image sourcing thing. I'm not actually the one who uploaded the original image; my only association was reducing the size as per requests for fair use reduce, but it was informative nontheless. Have a good day, Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Not sure why I put AfD... *brain snap* Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

What do you mean "without permission"? I've cleared myself with all the pictures copyrights, no problems with the copyright owners. Soxrock 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "I've cleared myself with all the pictures copyrights."

  • Images that were marked were licensed as TV Screen shots, though there were obtained from a website.
  • None of the websites that were listed specifically allowed use of their images and some specifically disallowed the use.
  • If you have obtained specific permission, please provide a reference to it to preclude others from tagging your images. (Also, you need to provide that to the WikiPedia Copyright group as well for their review).

I am really trying to work with you on these--many others would have simply posted them for a IFD or possibly image-vio, since they have insufficient evidence attached to the file.

You have received numerous messages on image violations from a number of editors. If you truly want your images to remain on WikiPedia, you'd be more successful if you chose to follow the guidelines.

You really need to:

  • Avoid using images which you download from News websites unless you have written authorization for each image. (image-vio)
  • Consistently use Fair You Rationale (an example of which I provided earlier) even if you tag the image (both are required).(no rationale)
  • Avoid using images from logo or photo collections online as they do not own the copyright.(NLD)
  • State the copyright when you have followed all of the other rules.(NLD)
  • Finally go through ALL of the image files that you have created and make the correct changes to all of them. (User Contributions -- Sorted by images)

Otherwise you will spend most of your time improperly deleting valid tags, answering these annoying messages and replacing images rather than creating new articles, which is what you'd probably prefer to do.

As I said before I would be happy to assist you in correcting example images so that you can make the modifications on the rest.

Thanks for taking the time to resolve these issues.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the licenses, they are "historic" since they cannot be duplicated and were taken from non-news agencies. I'll also try harder to avoid news websites. I noticed the archive where non-news website images were kept fine. Now, the reason that I have some copyright problems is because I usually take for granted that the URL images are on is where they are copyright. That is my fault, and I'm trying to get rid of that bad habit. I'll be doing some more of those NFL pages and images between this upcoming weekend and the end of March. Crazy Canadian 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin Coaching?

Unfortunately, the page hasn't been up-to-date for some time; I haven't actually had the available free time necessary to undertake a proper coaching arrangement for several months now. (I had thought the page had been deleted with the rest of Esperanza, actually, given that I wasn't recieving messages regarding it.)

My apologies for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Kirill Lokshin 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move

I have moved User/Lmcelhiney/Testpad to User:Lmcelhiney/Testpad. -- RHaworth 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for fixing my error! --Lmcelhiney 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png

Hi, I just quickly went through that image when I was deleting images so I didn't spend that much time on it. The tag {{no license}} was used but it obviously had the {{logo}} tag on it. The tag {{Fairuse rationale needed}}, but see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concerning_I6 it's not clear yet if that tag only counts when the generic fair use templates like {{fairuse}} and {{fairusein}} were used. And yes, those reasons you mentioned would be an excellent fair use rationale if added to the image page. Regarding the source or who holds the copyright, you could use {{subst:nsd}} if you don't think that source is valid. Whether the image fails wikipedia's fair use criteria, if you think it fails those criteria you can add {{Fair use disputed}} on the image and state your reason. Hope this helps, Garion96 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I just wanted to be sure that I was not off track. Grey areas of guidelines are difficult at best. Take care, Larry --Lmcelhiney 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album tags

Hi, I think the one you are looking for is {{albumcover}} for license tagging. I still had the list here to refer back to later, but if you can do it quicker for the ones you noticed, all the better! Thanks. :) Bubba hotep 13:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go ahead and make that change and check any others that I have done. Take care, Larry --Lmcelhiney 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Those licenses (and especially the correct templates to use after you've uploaded them) are a veritable minefield. Bubba hotep 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/m/c/User_talk%7ELmcelhiney_Archive_2_91e2.html"