User talk:Sherool/21 Feb 2006 - 26 Aug 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Image:Giggs.jpg

It's stated on the UEFA website.

Except as otherwise stated above, you are granted permission to view, store, print, reproduce, distribute any pages or download any material from the Website for personal non-commercial use only provided that (a) you do not modify any such page or any such material and (b) you include these Terms and Conditions with any reproduction. Any unauthorized reproduction for commercial purposes of the Website or any part thereof is a violation of UEFA's rights.

The image is from the official UEFA website www.uefa.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.Kris (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 February 2006 UTC.

Reply posted on User talk:M.Kris. --Sherool (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HcCollageKidsWeb4 03.jpg

I was wondering why you changed the licensing on this image? The owner requested I upload the photo (after they tried several times) due to their inexperience with Wikipedia; they confirmed the licensing at that time. Is the copyright, release for all uses tag not being used any longer? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Jareth. --Sherool (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Since there are several other images in the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article which have the same problem, I will speak with the editors who took the pictures and change the source information/tag as appropriate after they have confirmed permission. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please help with category

Hey Sherool. I see you're part of a project dealing with categories. I want to create a category but can't seem to find a page containing an 'idiots guide to creating categories'. The category I want to create is, "Wikipedians censored by Islamist editors". It's unusual & you may find it questionable. If so, feel free to ask me about it & I'll explain my motives. It probably needs to go directly under "Category:Wikipedians" as none of the Subcategories from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians seem suitable. I want to create a category that wikipedians use to describe themselves such as Category:Wikipedians in Albania. Are these categories different to categories for articles such as Category:Motorcycles? Is it irrelevent whether the cat is for wikipedians or articles? I was asking Urthogie about this but need clarification & it seems he's left & I'm keen to sort this out quickly. Veej 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Veej. --Sherool (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help, Sherool. You can see what I've created at Category:Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors. By the way, I feel a little unformfortable myself about this category because I don't want it to be hijacked by nutters. I'm not deliberately trying to be inflammatory & I don't want to offend people. I feel have have been bullied recently though. I just read user:OceanSplash's comments here. Though I disagree with user:OceanSplash on so many issues & believe he is generalizing followers of a major world religion, he does highlight a lack of a support structure for people critical of Islamists. I just want the category help people find support, so the don't feel alone. I'm definately not trying to foster hate. One more thing, do you have any suggestions for anything I can do to avoid this category being hijacked by extremists, like rewording the description etc? Veej 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice spike image

You tagged Image:Ice spike.jpg as a possibly-unfree image, but I believe we have permission to use the photograph.

  To: kgl@caltech.edu
  Subject: Ice spike photographs

  Hi there.

  I just read your fascinating page on ice spike formation, and was
  wondering if you'd mind if I uploaded one of the photographs to the
  Wikipedia community encyclopedia?  The credit would read:

    This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use 
    it for any purpose.

    Photographer: Kenneth G. Libbrecht <kgl@caltech.edu>

  My thanks in advance.

The reply:

  You can use an ice spike picture, but with a different credit line:
  Photo provided by Kenneth Libbrecht (http://www.snowcrystals.com)

  ********************************************************** 
  Kenneth G. Libbrecht
  Professor of Physics and Physics Executive Officer
  Office: 263 W. Bridge
  Address: 264-33 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
  e-mail: kgl@caltech.edu
  URL: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/
  **********************************************************

--Ghakko 08:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted at User talk:Ghakko (and forwarded to WP:PUI). --Sherool (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete

Hi. I was looking through the remainder of my image uploads, amending the last of the copyvios and whatnot, and I've crossed some images that are ethier obsolete or orphaned. I would appreciate it if you could execute an speedy delete on these images:

  • Image:UserMegamanZero.gif
  • Image:Krizalid.jpg
  • Image:Cerveru(MMZ).jpg
  • Image:Orochishermie.jpg
  • Image:Omega(improvedquality).jpg
  • Image:Sol-badguy.jpg
  • Image:UserMegamanZero.jpg

-ZeroTalk 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok done. --Sherool (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Ikea Minneapolis.JPG

Regarding your edit to my talk page, I'm not the original uploader – I just adjusted the brightness a bit, so you probably should ask Skubasteve834 (who uploaded the original) instead. –Gustavb 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Image:IdP.PNG notiça

Hullo. Your substed note was singularly unhelpful, especially in trying to actually figure out how to determine which template to use... I'm no more familiar with © law now than I was when I uploaded the image, so I'll 'splain you, in slightly more detail than I did on the image page itself, how I made the image—and perhaps you can help me higger out what tag to use, or if the img is, in fact, a copyvio.

To make the image, as noted on the image page itself, I took a screenshot of a map similar to this one (same place, but I just called that map up now) from http://mappoint.msn.com/ and altered it as follows:

  • Cropped lots of water, because the map is meant to show the relative position of the island, in relation to the rest of the province of Isla de la Pascua, not to demonstrate how much water there is in the Pacific :-p
  • Removed bright red "CHILE", because it is unnecessary for the map
  • Moved scale into field and changed color for contrast, moved map coördinates into field
  • Added map title and names for the islands (Easter and SyG)

Contrary to appearances, as digging through the history demonstrates, I did tag the image when I uploaded it, with {{Screenshot}}. I've since figured out what that tag is for, but am uncertain what tag should be used instead. User:JYolkowski changed the tag to {{web-screenshot}}, which seems to be closer to the realm of the correct tag, and added {{fairusedisputed}} as well, although he never did clarify his rationale for having done so. (I asked him to do so on the image talk page.)

Based on what I can find on the relevant terms of use page, I still believe the image to fall under the rubric of "fair use", although perhaps it might have been prudent to have moved the Microsoft® MapPoint® image into the frame as well.

Given that, hopefully you can figure out what to use as a tag. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks for your time. Tomertalk 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know the outcome of the fair-use review ASAP, as its outcome will need to be applied to several other images as well. Tomertalk 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and if making a replacement is easy, I should be able to understand how...if someone can point me in the right direction... :-p Tomertalk 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:TShilo12. --Sherool (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Acoustic cleaning image

Thanks for comment.....i had not meant the description to cause this issue. The image was donated freely and there are no restrictions. I have noted same on user page of image Collieman 10:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Collieman. --Sherool (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sherool,

Yes ...it does apply to the second image as well and i have changed the note on the front page. I admit to being confused by the templates :-) would you mind checking the image [1] Sorry to have caused you extra work.

Collieman 07:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RE: Image copyright problem with Image:Ikrpg_art_races_gobber.jpg

Thanks for bringing this (and the other related image files) to my attention. These were the first files I ever put up on the Wikipedia and hope they're all source-identified and copyright-identified to everybody's satisfaction now. -- Burrowowl 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Calmouk

Please check this and other images recently uploaded by User:Calmouk. The guy seems to have very limited understanding of what public domain is all about. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Ghirlandajo. --Sherool (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Guntveit05.jpg

Sherool, you are doing very great job in tagging images but i noticed this image has already a tag and then you are tagging it with {{nsd}}. I think this is not the suitable tag. Regards Shyam (T/C) 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Urshyam. --Sherool (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sherool, but this tag is only for asking user to help in tagging. Please read ehat the tag says. Thanks Shyam (T/C) 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Urshyam. --Sherool (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sherool, I am quite convinced with your reply, sorry for inconvenience. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borough High Street image

Borough High Street image - when I uploaded them (years ago) I linked to an email I had saying that anyone could use for any purpose. I don't know if we still have that information (I don't work for Southwark any more). Secretlondon 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Secretlondon. --Sherool (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aerotrim image

Hi! Thanks for your help with the Image:Aerotrim_public_image.jpg image. I changed the tag to GNU because the image belongs to us. The site http://www.sz-erlebniswelt.de/Bilder/spaceball/aerotrim1_g.jpg scanned it from our catalog and used it without permission, putting their copyright on it. However, since we released it over ten years ago we no longer care who uses it, to put it bluntly. Hence, I released it under GNU. Still, do you think this could be a problem? I don't want to complicate matters and/or be blocked (heck no!;-). I can always use different images I still have (even from the same photoshoot) that were not used in the catalog, and therefor are nowhere else to be found but in my collection. If that is the case we should maybe delete the questionable image in order to uphold Wiki standards. Let me know!

By the way, since we're talking images, you may have seen on my talk page that several images from my Larimar article were deleted for lack of a correct tag. I shot them myself, but obviously did a lousy job in tagging them (mea culpa). Can you advise me what is the correct tag for such images? GNU doesnt seem to cut it...

Thanks for all your help and hard work in keeping Wiki up to standards and sorry for all the inconvenience. --The Singularity 14:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:The Singularity. --Sherool (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I just had to delink that. The shperical nature and immense frame size freaked me out. -ZeroTalk 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and kind words! I would say lets delete the image entirly (can you do that?) and I'll upload a high-res later. I will be updating the entire Aerotrim article anyway. And I hope to become a better Wikipedian in the future. Thanks for everything! --The Singularity 16:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure I think we can skip the whole 7 day deletion process in this case since it's your image and all. I'll get rid of it right away. Happy continued editing. --Sherool (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations and encyclopediac images by User:Fx sever

Hello, we appear to have a fellow who wishes to ignore policy and uploading process in the action of unencyclopediac images. Please see his contributions, and you'll note that not one of his images have source or copyright information (and the one's that do are copyvio). I was hoping you could delete them in the usual process if he fails to follow policy. He may also need a block as well, since I notified him of his actions on his talkpage, and he went right back at it. -ZeroTalk 04:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example: Image:Eddygordo5a.jpg. -ZeroTalk 04:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Megaman Zero. --Sherool (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orfud

Thanks Sherool, I have already got notified by Howcheng. He also denied to do so. Sorry for mistakes made previously. I will be taking care of that. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for help on pre-populating a new page

Just wanted to give you a sincere thanks for the help on pre-populating a new page. Thanks to you, it's working just as I wanted. I appreciate your taking a chance and divulging the details when others were (understandably) cautious about showing someone so new how to do something that could be abused. I just set up a thank you page and you're the first one on it. Thanks again. Jimkloss 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yuko

I didn't quite understand what info you need for the Yuko picture that I posted, can you please elaborate?--Moosh88 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Moosh88. --Sherool (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. So what tag do you think would be ok for the image, and what restrictions do you think the image has? I really apriaciate your help!--Moosh88 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Moosh88. --Sherool (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial View of BOHS

I don't understand why everybody seems to want to remove images of my freaking school.

But that's besides the point. The image was taken from google, which as far as I'm aware, is free for use by anyone.

But the image has been deleted anyways. I'm sick of dealing with people who want to delete images of a school. For chrissakes', what is wrong with that? Vagrant 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:USSVagrant. --Sherool (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Xma-02.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Xma-02.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just change the license information of image, please check it and tell me if it isn't clear enough.L-Zwei 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:L-Zwei. --Sherool (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
MAHQ give permission in their FAQ page. However, consider that it is mecha from game, could I use {{character-artwork}} tag instead? I don't edit image's summary yet, so please reply.L-Zwei 05:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:L-Zwei. --Sherool (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Image:YesSuckBanner.jpg listed for deletion

Thats fine it used to be on my userpage but is gone now feel free to delete. Mike Beckham 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Shrine of Bahaullah.jpg

I belive it's copyright status is Изображение с неясным статусом Данное изображение не имеет сопроводительной информации относительно источника, авторства и лицензии, или эта информация неполна. Если она не будет предоставлена, то через 7 дней изображение будет удалено с сервера.

I don't think that is very good but my russian is pretty much non existant.Geni 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Geni. --Sherool (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Before you acfcuse me of things please cheack the upload dates.Geni 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Geni. --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Cheaking the tag back when I uploaded it would have been quite an atchivement since it would require timetravel.Geni 23:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, yeah you copied it before it was tagged as "no info" there, but if you had gotten the page translated first you would probably have noticed that it had in fact no info, that's all I'm saying. Anyhow, no huge deal, if the Russian uploader adds the required info before the admins there get around to deleting it just translate the info, even if it's just a machine translation. If not we'll just have to find another image to replace it. --Sherool (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sign2div.gif

With regards to your concerns vis a vis [[Image:sign2div.gif]]

It says right on the copyright page: "Original artwork by Michael Dorosh for his website at www.canadiansoldiers.com; donated by the artist."

If this isn't clear, please feel free to add whatever copyright tag you feel most appropriate.Michael Dorosh 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about type of license statement to use

Sherool,

Thank you for your alert concerning my uploaded pictures. I have added my "license" statement to each picture.

There is my question. There are three types of pictures that I have uploaded. One is a picture of my self taken with my camera. Second are my "Cover Pages" from my website, which include images I took myself and some I got off the internet, which are combined in a collage I created for my cover pages. Third are photos I took of set designs I was hired to design over the years, these pictures were taken by me with my camera.

My question: Is the license statement I used the correct one for each of these type of picture uploads?

Again I am new here at wikipedia and am learning as I go.

Thanks again, Roger ambrose 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Roger

Reply posted on User talk:Roger ambrose. --Sherool (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This citation stuff is so hard, tedious, and complicated indeed. I went to http://www.seoul.co.kr/ and there's no copyright policy. this link merely states that the copyright is held by Seoul Newspapers and that was it. I guess the picture has to be deleted. By the way, what would be an appropriate template for newspaper images? Please help me if you can. By the way that site I mentioned is entirely Korean. Iloveayu 01:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This link is the closest page to the copyright policy, but I could not find any policies regarding images used in news articles. Iloveayu 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Iloveayu. --Sherool (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I read your reply. I guess this means that the picture will have to be deleted. Iloveayu 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Istanbul levent.jpg

All images fromw wowturkey.com are free for use. Copyright info here in Turkish: http://www.wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14278

Full translation courtesy of Metb82:

"Dear guests,

According to our ambition, we like the spreading of the photographs that we put in our wesite to be used and spread throughout the internet. The more it spreads, we are more proud of the work that we do without expecting anything in return. Please use our photographs as you like!

But we have a small request : If you really have to delete the tiny logo of our site from the photographs, then please mention our site as the source at the site that you are using our logo. This is unfortunately a legal must.

The whole rights and responsibility of the photographs on the website belong to the photograph owners. The copying and usage of the photographs on the site without permition from the photograph owners is a crime according to Idea and Art Works Law number 5846.

Who is the photograph owner? Who to take permission from? The rights for use of the photographs uploaded to our servers belongs to our site. For a commercial purposed use, permission must be taken, you can take permission by sending a private message to our member. You can be sure that both permission and an original of the photograph will be given. All you have to do is to send a message. There is no way for you to be seen as a thief, thats why please don't hesitate to take permission.

Thanx...

additional:The photographs that werent uploaded to our servers, meaning just given a link from other sites, do not belong to us. You have to follow the site the link was given, and take permission from wherever the link was given." --A.Garnet 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately as free as that might sound, there seem to be one critical problem. They do not allow commercial use without permission (so it is in fact not free for any purpose), and images uploaded to the Wikipedia must allow for commmercial use. I'm afraid we have to either "convert" all the wowturkey images to fair use claims or contact all the individual photographers who contributed the images and ask theyr permission to release the images under a less restrictive license. Such images uploaded after May 19, 2005 are in fact candidates for speedy deletion. --Sherool (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a beginner to all this copyright business, what do you mean by ""convert" all the wowturkey images to fair use claims" - is this a simple case of chaning the copyright template? --A.Garnet 16:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about the bad choice of words, fixing the copyright templates was what I meant. Replace the cc-at or free use templates and whateer with {{fairusein|whatever}} for example. It scertainly won't hurt to mention on the page that the images can be used freely for non-commercial purposes, but a fair use rationale should be added independantly of that fact as described on the Wikipedia:Fair use page (policy section mostly). --Sherool (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FairUse problem

I am not impressed by the fact that I was not approached earlier that there was a problem with my having the 'image' files on my user pages. I did not realise that I was breaking the rules, especially as the images were my own donations to Wikipedia. What you found was a record of some of my contributions to Wikipedia. This record only came about as a direct result of my having discovered, accidentally, that at least three of my photos, which I had taken with my camera, had been deleted from Wikipedia, without a word of warning to me personally at any time that these deletions were likely to happen, so that I could rectify the problem.

If I had been contacted personally by you, three weeks ago, when you first entered my name of the FairUse page (and preferably instead of your entering my name on the FairUse page), then I would have been very grateful to you personally, and could have fixed things up at that point in time instead of the problem having continued the way it has until now. I did not know, until you wrote to me, that I had done anything wrong, or that my name had been added to such a listing. To have listed my name in the way that you have done, without my knowing what was happening, I consider an inconsiderate thing to do. Consideration, towards people who try to contribute to Wikipedia by donating, seems to be sadly lacking - including in this particular instance. Figaro 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Figaro. --Sherool (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I appreciate your doing so very much. Figaro 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

Hi.. I searched low and high for ways to get in touch with J. Zaritsky, but so far the search has been fruittless.. Delete the photo by the designated date. If I do manage to get another photo with written permission before or after the current is deleted, I'll just post it.

thanks,

Svetlana Miljkovic 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Svetlana Miljkovic

[edit] Fairuse images in gallery

Hi Sherool, thanks for your note at my talk page. I changed all of the fairuse images into links so that it'll not be displayed there. The rest of the images are not on the fairuse licence though. Regards, Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks a lot

for pointing out the copyright issue on

. I notice that I'd done the other one for that article correctly, so updated the one you brought to my attention. I have several hundred images on wikipedia and have no idea how to track them all down. However you are not the first to point out ones that I've not copyrighted adequately, so thank you for doing so there. This is one of the problems with doing wikipedia at 2 or 3 in the morning. My attention to those sorts of details is not always the sharpest. Carptrash 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Carptrash. --Sherool (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and the suggestions. I Carptrash 20:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC) will be more careful in the future.

[edit] Karen Cashman

Hi, I took this from [2] which says NOTE: These pictures have been displayed for the development of our program. You may download them onto your computer. Please use them respectfully. I felt that covered wikipedia use - what do you think? Dlyons493 Talk 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Dlyons493. --Sherool (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll mail them for a release - otherwise it should just be deleted. Don't know why I bothered with this article in the first place, I was just trying to rescue it from a vandal. Dlyons493 Talk 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grin.gif

It's GNU open license from the GNU licensed package phpBB (same license as Wikimedia). I just forgot to tag it properly Renmiri 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thai LongBuilding.jpg image

Hello. I received your note on my Talk page regarding the image with supplemental descriptive text in Thai: [3]. A source for the photo isn't indicated although whoever uploaded it claims that it qualifies for FAIR USE. The photograph is of a school in Thailand. --AStanhope 04:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Astanhope. --Sherool (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Radar-angles.png

I've forgot to put the copyright when I've imported this image into Wikipedia. I've corrected the situation. Thanks to have informed me about it. Pierre_cb(talk) April 2nd, 2006

[edit] ==Image Tagging Image:Aliki Diplarakou.jpg==

Hi, Sherool, the Image:Aliki Diplarakou.jpg image should be deleted. I didn't load it on the article Aliki Diplarakou or put any other additional information on the image pages because I can't confirm if that is her or not. Thank you!! :)~ Mallaccaos, 3 April 2006

[edit] Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Frank Slide1.jpg

There is no image copyright problem. The only problem is that Wikipedia doesn't have a Canadian version of the {{PD-USGov}} template used for U.S. Government images. If you had read and understood the text under Licensing, you would have seen that Natural Resources Canada has released this image into the public domain for non-commercial and educational use. I think that falls well within the scope of what we are doing here in Wikipedia. Please direct your energies toward creating new templates, not taking down images that fall within Wikipedia's use policies. —QuicksilverT @ 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User_talk:Hydrargyrum. --Sherool (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:No license

Hi Sherool. Would you mind giving us one more opinion at Template talk:No license#Why include images in two categories? Thanks. ×Meegs 04:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious, how many people have requested copies of images you've deleted, and in what time period? Maybe I should keep copies too, as a courtesy. ×Meegs 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Meegs. --Sherool (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no

you sent me a message. you said that i uploaded a picture, but when i took a look at the picture, i realized that it wasn't one i've ever uploaded. just wanted to let you know. Leo Collin 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Leo Collin. --Sherool (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
actually, i haven't forgotten about it at all. what happened was i clicked on the link to the picture that you originally left, and it took me to a picture of someplace, a picture that i never posted on here. however, this document that you are talking about i did create, and i did post on here, however the page that it was being used for was deleted/redirected, therefore, there really isn't a need for it to be on here anymore. by all means then, feel free to delete it. Leo Collin 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1stcitizens.jpg may be deleted

Image may be deleted. Akhenaton06 10:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JesusF-ingChrist.jpg

Please delete this image as quick as possible - I actually was surprised (and somewhat mortified) that it wasn't deleted a long time ago. Uploaded while drunk... Camillus (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, deleted. --Sherool (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:JeremySteinCushman.jpg

Source added. --Mets501talk 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to:

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:JeremySteinCushman.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to keep nagging about this, but it would be rely helpfull if you could actualy point to some statement by Jeremy Cushman where it actualy says that the image is released to the public domain. I don't like to "distrust" people, but far to many users mistakedly believe that all "widely distributed" material is public domain, so we rely need some kind of verifiable source where it explicitly says that the image is in the public domain. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John zaritsky.jpg

Hi,

I uploaded again the photo, after deletion, and provided the email that gave us the permission to use the picture from the owner of the photo! I don't know what else to add in order for photo to stay on!?!? thanks,

Lana

Svetlana Miljkovic 14:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Svetlana Miljkovic. --Sherool (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I added the email with the summay of the photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JZaritsky.jpg When I go to "my contributions" I have it, but when you go to the image, there's nothing there?!? Don't get it.. But this is the email. I asked for the permission to use the photo along the article. I said in the email that there is his bio, but if there's no permission obtained from them, as owner, that the photo will be deleted, so they said 'it's OK'.
Svetlana Miljkovic 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Svetlana Miljkovic. --Sherool (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! we'll do in future, reformulate asking for permissions..
Svetlana Miljkovic 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] thanks

thanks for notified me about the image. the image was uploaded months ago when i first joied wikipedia, i had no understanding about the rule. now i do. i will try to fix it. if it's still not fixed, feel free to delete it. thanks. HoneyBee 14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cue sheets

Hi, I noticed you never removed the detail of a cue sheet photo from the Photoplay music entry from the WP:PUI list and subesquently it was deleted because of this. I believe I explained why the cue sheet is in public domain. Just to reiterate, cue sheets were never copyrighted because the whole point was that their ideas were to be used nationwide. The layout was patented by M.J. Mintz, but the patent ended in 1943. Therefore, the now deleted photograph was in the public domain. The Photoplayer 16:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Thephotoplayer. --Sherool (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jon stock.jpg

I have corrected it to {{Fair use in}} article.--PremKudvaTalk 07:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your thoughtfully perspicacious answer; I suspect the rest of the story is having vision problems passing the big 5-oh has made things unpleasant this last two years in close work. Fortunately, got new glasses that have fixed that. FrankB 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet another thanks. Someone else suggested Blue something skin, not something I've played with. The whole matter is making me think we need an VP post to raise the issue about changing the default skin for users. For example, I was editing for months, before I ever noticed the cats on articles pages at the bottom using the default skin. I'm willing to bet most 'Customers' don't know they're there nor what they're for either, which is their whole purpose! As in WP:Btw. This one has slipped through a crack I think.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness, I'm not a newbie, but there are so many hours in a day, and so much I contribute, I need to take time now and again to keep browsing and learning. There is just so much it's easier to play Ostrich! <G> FrankB 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aaahh!!

I though I just fixed {{prod}}. I'm going to revert it back, wait until the job queue clears and see if it works. —Ruud 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:R. Koot. --Sherool (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Concerning this edit, why did you IFD this speedy candidate? Thanks for clearing up my confusion. --ZsinjTalk 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Zsinj. --Sherool (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! --ZsinjTalk 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omoo

Hi Sherool. You're the most recent editor to attempt communication with User:Omoo. I deleted many of their images that you tagged, but many more remain in copyright limbo. I left him a message today that, hopefully, they won't remove. How do you think we should deal with the images attributed to http://issamichuzi.blogspot.com/ ? There're so many of them; some seem likely to be owned by the blogger, while others are certainly not. ×Meegs 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Meegs. --Sherool (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fairuse image categories

Sherool, you seem to have created a number of orphaned fairuse image categories for a number of days, each of says that they can be deleted after 5 days. However, looking at Category:Orphaned fairuse images and at WP:CSD#Images.2FMedia, the rule is for deletion after seven days. Is there a reason you are writing five days everywhere? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Ricky81682. --Sherool (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, is there a reason for creating categories for February and March? Any images in those categories should be deleted anyways and won't be added to them any time soon. Why not just not bother creating them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Ricky81682. --Sherool (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toolserver

I am thinking about trying to stir up support for a toolserver we can count on, colocated with the main server cluster. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, the most general being a system like that, with low barriers to entry (as opposed to code changes in mediawiki) and relatively little or no threat to the database is a better system in principle than changes to the code. More people and lower barriers mean more responsive change and tools that suit the needs of sub-communities within the larger wikipedia community. Also, I think as usage increases handling some aspects of wikipedia cannot be done in a pure wiki environment. Images and the prod system are excellent examples.

I was wondering about your thoughts on this, I don't want to rush into anything, but even if it comes to fund raising, I can't imagine it would be that hard to raise the money for one box.

I put a note on User:Gmaxwell, User:Interiot and here, I'd like to have some centralized discussion though, but I don't think the meta page is appropriate, anyway. I don't want to move to fast, I saw you pretty much had this same idea already on Gmaxwell's talk page :) - cohesion 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some kind of "campaign" would probably be a good idea, I'm not too great at organising that sort of things myself, but I'll be happy to help out. Dunno where to have a centralised discussion about things like that though. Maybe Jimbo's talk page? Dunno, it would probably drown in all the general whining and trolling going on there, but it would be handy to get Jimbo onboard. Point out that his pet project of categorising all living people in one giant category is useless without a toolserver tool to actualy monitor it for libelous edits for example. Maybe get the RC patrollers to join in since many anti vandalism tools don't work anymore etc. --Sherool (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was bold and started a new page Wikipedia:Toolserver, please comment on that and help start a discussion :) - cohesion 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:002358.jpg / Image:TourDownUnder.jpg

I am Steve Reynolds, and I took that photo, I've updated the image licensing data to confirm that I took the photo. --CarbonRods (talk) 17 April 2006

[edit] Re: Screenshots etc. and sources

Thanks for the explanation. I have been asking in the Talk page of the Fair use article about good "sources", and been obtaining different POV. It looks like this is a gray area, where there is no unique way of fulfilling the Wikipedia Fair use policy. It is so ambiguous, especially the downstream use guideline which states that For reusers, particularly commercial reusers, the most important part of a fair use description is good information on the original source of the image. That is essential to allow them to make their own determination of whether their own use is fair use. They can't rely on our judgment because they have legal liability regardless of what we say. Identifying the original source is good practice in general, as it bolsters our claim that we are not trying to defraud the original copyright holder. where original source can be understood as a number of ways. The Wikiproject about Fair Use seems to be a bit sleepy lately. -- ReyBrujo 11:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:ReyBrujo. --Sherool (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I have seen images where the uploader has created a screenshot (DVD screenshot or through an emulator in the case of a game, or a scanning in case of a magazine) and is releasing with a free license (like a GNU variant). In these cases the license should be modified to a Fair Use one, nevertheless who took the screenshot? I understand that if the uploader takes a photograph of a copyrighted model (in example, a Nintendo DS or a Xbox), he can release it with a free license. This is not the same with screenshots of series or scannings then? Sorry to pester, but you seem to know about this and I am willing to learn :-) -- ReyBrujo 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:ReyBrujo. --Sherool (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan fair use

Thanks for the information. I will keep that in mind. Thanks!! --Nivus(talk) 11:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i have a question

I want to write an article that's not existing at the moment, and it should be named Marjan. So when you type in "marjan" in Search box and go, three articles show up: one that I want to write, about a lion, a hill in Croatia and something else. So, when I go to make Marjan in the first choice (the lion story) it interlinked, nothing happens?? It just bolds it instead of linking it... so how do I go about it? I wrote tons of stuff in serbian wiki and some here, so it's not as if I am writing for the first time, therefore I don't get how come I can't interlinked that......??

Marjan this is what it brings me to, instead of a link to start writing a brand new article.

Thank you!!


Svetlana Miljkovic 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Svetlana Miljkovic. --Sherool (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.. you are the best!! :)

Svetlana Miljkovic 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

how would i know if the image licensing is approved by the wiki board? and furthermore, are there any other additional information needed besides the source url, licensing and summary? thanks for the reminder, by the way. i hope you reply soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fx sever (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

Reply posted on User talk:Fx sever. --Sherool (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. it was helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fx sever (talk • contribs) 12:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] last time....

.... I bug you! I wrote an article about a biscuit company in Serbia Bambi. so I would like to write a Trivia part to the article, but would like to include a photo of the product from the companies website. So, the question is, can I upload the image of the boxed biscuit, and in image licensing put the logo of the company, the one that are used for companie's logos???

Svetlana Miljkovic 06:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Svetlana Miljkovic. --Sherool (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I was hopeful you could execute a speedy on this Image: Image:Anus.jpg, uploaded by an troll-only account. I placed it up on ifd, but I simply cannot wait that long for this nonsense to remain on this encyclopediac site. -ZeroTalk 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can a misfiled image be 'moved'

Hi! I uploaded an image the other day, I infered was elsewhere, only to find it was another river across the mountain top. I'm checking which branch of the Greenbrier River it ought to properly become, reasoning says east branch, but I've been burned once— that's enough!. The image is in Cheat River, for which I'm trying to get a replacement from the National Park Service, so this is no hurry stuff.

The question is whether it can be renamed/moved or whether I should just upload it again in the correct spot and upload and over-write the current photo with whatever I can wangle from the NPS. IMHO, The article 'correctness' can wait a few days until I hear from the park rangers. (I doubt it's either the first or last time an image was misapplied herein! <G>). Thanks for the time! (There's no move tab on my browser, maybe there is on an admins???) FrankB 18:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go ahead and delete the image

I've changed my mind, it's out. I'm putting a heart instead lol. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Badshah Khan

Thanks I have changed the copyright status I hope its corrected now --Zak 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Zakksez. --Sherool (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for notification

Thanks for notifying about the fair use breach on my user page. Kusonaga 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit author autorization on copyrighted material

Hello, I have recently been given a warning about a copyrighted image on Tennessee Williams. Indeed, it was my mistake to upload it. However, I have contacted some photographers and I am thinking of replacing the image with another one.

The question is, what kind of tag should I use if I have been specifically allowed to use this new image FOR wikipedia ONLY, but this image cannot be reproduced, modified or used in any other context without explicit permission from its author? I haven't been able to find it, and I would very much appreciate a little help from your expertise. Thank you --Ludvig 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:M3taphysical. --Sherool (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Worldview idealist.jpg

You can go ahead and delete Image:Worldview idealist.jpg. I went and retook the quiz (at the originating website) to try to access the image permissions. As I recall there used to be a statement in the quiz results about free use of the image, but I can't seem to locate any such statement anymore. The originating website does provide options to cut and paste quiz results, including the image, to one's webpage, but this is not exactly permission to release to GFDL. At any rate, the image is only used on my user subpage, so its deletion will not likely negatively impact the project. --M;Perel ( talk | contrib) 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Dilip

Kindly give me a few days. I will forward you a permission letter from the website. Thanks. Dilip rajeev 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr

Hello, can you advise me which Flickr licenses are compatible with Wikipedia? --Ghirla -трёп- 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Ghirlandajo. --Sherool (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Image:WolfgangLuth.jpg

Hi Sherool, thanks for giving a message about copyright image to me. You may able to delete the Image:WolfgangLuth.jpg that I've uploaded. By the way please delete the image as soon as possible because that image I've uploaded is not a free use image. Thank you, your cooperation is greatly appreciated. — Emrrans Talk 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, deleted. --Sherool (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use image rationale

I may be misunderstanding Fair Use, but I assumed that because that image Image:Bakusho_Mondai_in_Fuji_TV.jpg was taken off of a private news sources site that it wouldn't qualify for Fair Use, because it was never realeased by the group or their company, and attributes nothing to the news source or the photographer. The two other images were taken from random sources (I assume google) and no possible credit was given to their sources. Am I wrong? freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Freshgavin. --Sherool (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it's not really my strong point either, which is I guess why I put it up there. It sounds to me like an image with a background like that wouldn't be allowed, so I figured it may or may not get through the procedure. I'll try to be more descriptive next time : X. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for tagging logos correctly

I wanted to give a big thank you for your work in applying correct tags to logos and other images. After my recent frustration with certain plainly fairly-used images getting deleted through the combined efforts of OrphanBot and certain admins, it gave me great relief to see in your edit history that you have actually been correctly tagging and restoring a number of images instead of just blindly deleting them. DHowell 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Watergardens-station-platform.jpg

You wrote to me about a licencing problem regarding Image:Watergardens-station-platform.jpg. Since your notification I've received an email from the author with permission to use the {{attribution}} tag. His email was forwarded to permissions at wikimedia dot org. I've also provided a bit more info in the summary. I hope this is sufficient. Thanks. --ozzmosis 07:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

This is how some users decide to deal with image copyright notifications (in case you hadn't noticed before)... NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. Hopefully some of it sunk in at least. I generaly don't bother making a big fuss about people removing warnings as long as they heed them and don't go right back to uploading more mistagged images, but I'll be trying to remember to keep an eye on his uploads for a while. --Sherool (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Iniesta58031.jpeg

It's stated on the UEFA website.

Except as otherwise stated above, you are granted permission to view, store, print, reproduce, distribute any pages or download any material from the Website for personal non-commercial use only provided that (a) you do not modify any such page or any such material and (b) you include these Terms and Conditions with any reproduction. Any unauthorized reproduction for commercial purposes of the Website or any part thereof is a violation of UEFA's rights.

The image is from the official UEFA website www.uefa.com - something which was mentioned when I uploaded the image - and this stuff is right at the top of your talk page - hopefully this clears up all the confusion.

Thank You Pramod 18:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Pramod.s. --Sherool (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Understood!
But its a painful business getting hold of uncopyrighted images. How bad is the current status - with the "this is not right" notice stuck to the image? IOW, can this state of affairs continue indefinitely?
Pramod 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:Pramod.s. --Sherool (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Vitmain.jpg

Hi! Thanks for notifying me. I have placed a new copyright notice. Yogi (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wendy-fitzwilliam.jpeg

I presume the logic there would also apply to Image:Commissiong.jpg Guettarda 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, tagged it. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For removing 16000+ unencyclopedically unworthy pages from Wikipedia and helping to keep the encyclopedia in a healthy state - As a new admin, I can certainly attest to the unappetizing kind of hard work (clearing CSD). Regards, Blnguyen

Perhaps a monthly delivery is required for your magnitude of work! You only have one barnstar for all this unglamorous and lonley work?!?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Posted a thanks on User talk:Blnguyen. --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Translation

I have translated the article Rudolf Tarnow, which you requested, to the best of my ability. Some of the article on the German Wikipedia is a likely copyvio from his autobiography, so I left that part out. Tell me how you like it! Happy to be of service, RyanGerbil10 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:RyanGerbil10. --Sherool (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regine Velasquez images

Good job catching all those unsources images on the Regine Velasquez article. Even if they were sourced correctly, there are WAY too many of them on that page to qualify as fair use. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RushmoreLogo.jpg

Please, don't remove nosource-tags from image pages unless you supply the image's source. Your changes have been reverted. Thank you. --HarryCane 11:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:HarryCane. --Sherool (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The description "The logo for the Record Label Rushmore Records" does not qualify as a detailed source description. The {{logo}}-tag even tells you to add a fair use rationale and a description of the work's source and copyright status. Also, the PUI-tag says not to remove it while the question is being considered. As far as Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images goes, it still is, so the tag shouldn't be removed. --HarryCane 15:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted on User talk:HarryCane. --Sherool (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said it had no source. I only added the PUI-tag while I was going through the uploader's edits (as he did a few bogus uploads/articles), because it claimed that he was the copyright holder and released all rights. User:Hetar then added the nosource-tag. Later I only reverted your changes, because the file was/is still listed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images, and until it's not, the tag shouldn't be removed (at least that's what {{PUIdisputed}} says). --HarryCane 12:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like your take on this

I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // FrankB 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Question#2, on image moves

Is there a template to tag an image that should be ported to the commons, and a BOT that then moves them from time to time? I've been spending much time there lately on the new top down map categorization scheme, interconnecing equivilent cats in the main, but also cat sorting images. Thus I've run across a few here and there that ought to be on the commons and not just on e.wikipedia. This seems like an efficient way to handle such moves, as they are doing there on the commons with some of the category deletions there once emptied. (See this and Commons:User_talk:David_Kernow if that is a null reference to you.)

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System under attack

I thought I was on wiki-break. Hah! Thank God for friends and email! Lend some vote help please! I don't know where my personal category stands in a legal sense, but these two project categories directly support normalizing pages here with the commons, which you know I've been working. (Three other categories have already disappeared because I didn't add locate and add contents fast enough! I swear some people expect instant results from volunteer time schedules!)

re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_15#Fabartus_user_categories This is a bit of spiteful non-sense— at least on the admin cats, imho. Thanks. // FrankB 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas: More collateral damage for an intemperate momemt! // FrankB 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario image

I've undeleted it, it was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that. It's so great that we can now undelete images, so I can fix such mistakes. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:JesseW. --Sherool (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamakura Daibutsu

I know it's a minor thing, but I wanted to thank you for finding that picture of the Kamakura Daibutsu and adding it to the Japanese art article. It's a gorgeous shot. LordAmeth 23:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:CSD

A discussion on the use of headers for the page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is currently being discussed at Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Category_Header_Information. Your input would be welcome. — xaosflux Talk 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collared Pratincole image

What's the point of notifying me that an image is listed for deletion and than deleting it anyway?

Several older uploaded images that were valid (mainly from 1905 paintings) have been deleted over the last few months when they could have been salvaged by correct tagging. Typically, just writing "my image" or "public domain" has led to deletion rather than retagging or notifying me so that I can fix if possible. It's a pity that trigger-happy deletion without warning is so much easier than doing anything constructive. jimfbleak 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Jimfbleak --Sherool (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry to sound off, and I understand why this particular image was chopped, but I'm a bit touchy on this issue for the reasons given above - nothing personal. jimfbleak 07:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cornell010

Go ahead and delete the picture, i uploaded it and then I found out I could not use it.Cornell010 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you give us

... a quick ruling on fair use here. Thanks. Also need your wisdom in interwiki category discussion to commons. Please email me direct at fabartus - at - comcast.net so I can add you to mailing list. Thanks2 // FrankB 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bmwm6.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bmwm6.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear CR status

Hi: re: Image:CountBasie.jpg following the link it's attributed as: Edward Dixon ©Stars and Stripes, but I'm not sure whether that qualifies it as PD-US-GOV as tagged, or whether it's a Copy-vio. Experience lacking alas! From Category:United States military images... do you know the commons equivilent 'PDwhatever' cat equivilent? If so, change the {commonscatNo} to {Commoscat1R|Their category name}. Thanks! // FrankB 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted on User talk:Fabartus. --Sherool (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Preping clarification on the links now, answer there (I'm stealing the thread now! <g>) Think I'd found and tagged the cat with '1R' after initial tagging of 'No' version.
Yep - Sorry - I'm not good at predicing the future when leaving a message! <g> 'category:PD US Military' is linked when you look... Both ways now. (The interwiki box on the right side.)
Think that's all you needed clarified. The caps may have made you miss it, or you saw the '1R' I'd already installed shortly later. Whichever, I think we're done.
If you want to match up other image cats you visit or know with some other interwiki tagging, use {{commonscat1R}} or {{commonscat1Ra}} (with it's link to a main article) from this side, and template:WikiPcat1 from over on the commons.
(The 'R' suffixed versions will likely get renamed, but anything tagged can have that fixed by BOT from the auto-category.)
The 'usage and system notes' are on {{commonscat4}}, but don't worry about the even numbered one's yet... were still working out when to judge those proper to apply as 'equalized' versus 'matching' (see the auto-category names if that isn't clear. '1' means matching, not equalized, even numbers tag the latter, in brief.).
We're working now to fixup the commons tag's name and to get things to work in other language wikipedias, so your tagging will help me help you and a lot of others.
Thanks. // FrankB 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to junk this up or blow it up into a big deal, but getting this clarified is fairly important as a precedence, so I'm referring this for legal opinion. Thanks! I didn't have time to find the procedure!

Concern... repeated below so don't follow!
    • I asked Sherool about the above... as members of the Stars and Stripes staff are normally military personnel on their official duty... Journalist in truth but also members of the US military in the action of discharging their duties, so such wide copyright claims by Stars and Stripes may not be legitimate depending on which code sections are invoked in what order, etc., and so this tagging may be entirely apropo. I didn't know, but suspect the photo's are indeed PD. I'm asking for informed legal opinion on this one to be posted here for all our future references! Best regards. // FrankB 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Singer-stub

Hi Sherool, thank you for the assistance with the icon and for your explanations on the protection! Best regards, gidonb 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message about deletion

Hello. I've been away from Wikipedia since December 2005. I just logged in again and found some messages waiting, one of which was your note about deleting an image. It's fine. I don't even remember uploading the image in question. Thanks for notifying me.

--wayland 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Image:Bolts3.jpg

My apologies. You have my expressed permission to adjust the image copyright as you see fit. vex5 02:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/e/User_talk%7ESherool_21_Feb_2006_-_26_Aug_2006_6129.html"