User talk:Anetode/archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Question

Sorry to mess up the new...but I have a question for you....says on rule 1 of WP:FUC "if unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense."...my question is, is there anyway to turn any of the old radio and TV logos/images that are being deleted into free material? If so, how? Thanks...SVRTVDude 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK...some of these are from before 1963, some are not...most are not. In the cases that are, can they be readded? In the cases that are not, would a statement from the respective television and radio stations saying they don't mind the use for Wiki purposes knock it out of "fair-use" land? - SVRTVDude 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried talking about it til my fingers were blue (little joke there)...that is what I thought I could use the "if unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense." page of WP:FUC #1 and "transform" the images/logos "into free material"....but wasn't sure exactly how to do that or what that would entail. - SVRTVDude 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I know why I know a lawyer:) She can figure out all that mumbo-jumbo for me:)...Thanks, I will give it a shot, though. - SVRTVDude 13:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My birthday

Actually, I turned 20 back in November, but I forgot to update my userpage. Thanks for the thought, though! :) Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:JuanesCollage-1000.jpg

Was able to restore. - Regards Nv8200p talk 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 Boston security scare pics

Thanks for getting a release for those closeups. Would it be all right with you if these were uploaded to commons under a dual license (gfdl/cc-sa, as per e-mail)? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, please wait til they are tagged with the appropriate OTRS template!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok they can be copied over to commons now!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kameoscreenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kameoscreenshot.jpg. 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 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki

Hi,

An anonymous user incorrectly completed a transwiki it looks like you started on en.wiktionary. For simplicity, I've assumed that is you.

Can you please tell me where you got the notion that doing a transwiki like that was OK? I'd like to close off remaining points of ambiguity, by correcting the instructions wherever they are wrong.

Thanks in advance, --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Porn spam

Just wondering why you didn't feel it was spam, the last sentence of the article classed it pure spam in my mind. I don't care because it is getting deleted both ways just trying to improve my CSD detector. BJ^Talk 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. BJ^Talk 21:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take out my link

My link was to a website I have no affiliation with and was an article about Atheism no different from the ones above it. So why did you take it out?Cynicalreviewer 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Godzamba coat of arms

The coat of arms Godzamba is with gold tree. You added picture with "natural color" tree. It is not the same coat of arms!

The proper version Godzamba coat of arms: http://www.akromer.republika.pl/godziemba.gif

Even if it belongs to the same clan. Members of a clan can differ with their coats of arms from other coats of armes of other members of the clan. To use an unproper version of coat of arms by noble family is a violation according to paper by Artur Ornatowski [[1]].

with regards, Pan Piotr Glownia 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper Godziemba coat of arms is the natural brown color pine tree. Picture: commons:Image:Herb Godziemba.PNG

Proper Godzyamba coat of arms is the gold color pine tree. Picture: http://www.akromer.republika.pl/godziemba.gif

In the Western Europe the same coat of arms could differ amongst members of the same noble family. In Poland the same (or almost the same) coat of arms could differ amongst families of the same noble clan. Also in the Western Europe special marks and signs were used on coats of arms to precise the type of individual owner. In Poland however these differences adress issues of how the particular Polish noble family came into ownership of their clan's coat of arms and terms on which they are entitled to it.

As it apears using unproper version of the coat of arms by a family is seen as violation (a false claim, which is done by a pretender). If it is done by other peoples, then it is usually judged as lack of knowledge on the subject, as it is stated in Polish language at: [[2]]. Artur Ornatowski is some kind of expert in this area of knowledge in Poland and you can contact him [[3]] for the medieval source materials he used to come to this conclusion.

If one would add Godzyamba coat of arms to Godziemba coat of arms (as I did already in Polish version), then one had to put references that this version called Godzamba/Godzyamba specifically belongs to Glownia family. The already listed definition of the pine in Godziemba coat of arms refers to brown/natural pine and it is not description for Godzyamba coat of arms, in which version the pine is actually gold.

Also worth of notice is that Godziemba coat of arms is coat of arms of Polish nobility pl:herb szlachecki, when Godzyamba coat of arms before becaming Polish nobility's coat of arms was also knightly "ARMA BARONUM REGNI POLONIE" [[4]] coat of arms.

regards,Pan Piotr Glownia 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern but must reiterate: I have no knowledge of the field and I was not responsible for uploading this coat of arms. Please direct your comments to commons:User talk:Mathiasrex, thanks ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that you may have no knowledge about the Polish coats of arms or maybe just in this case. The picture provided by commons:User talk:Mathiasrex is correct picture of Godziemba, but it is not correct picture of Godzyamba coat of arms. Godzyamba is not just alternative name of the Godziemba coat of arms. It is actually alternative coat of arms. Possible even an older start version of Godziemba coat of arms too. It is possible that these both coats of arms belong to the same noble clan, but they differ from each other, they are called differently and futhermore they do belong to different noble families. I just want to make sure you don't mix them so carelessly as you did by adding the picture, wherever you just find only some empty space ;) on wikipedia. Regards, Pan Piotr Glownia 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did add the right describtion of the Godzamba coat of arms and two armorial references to its describtion and as well a link to the correct picture of the actual Godzamba coat of arms. I hope my addition on pl:Godziemba about Godzamba coat of arms also should help to avoid similiar missunderstandings other editors could do in the future (specially if Godzamba will be eventually in English version also merged with Godziemba). Regards, Pan Piotr Glownia 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lada.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lada.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 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I award this Barnstar to Anetode for excellent work improving Wikipedia in many areas. —Quarl 2007-02-17

Hi Anetode, I think you would make a great administrator here on Wikipedia. Are you interested? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 21:45Z

(from User talk:Quarl) Wow, sure, I'd be honored to give it a go ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anetode, I've nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anetode. If I missed anything in the nomination, let me know and I'll change it. You've participated in RFAs so you might know a little about how it works already. My main advice for surviving this process which can occasionally turn unfriendly is to stay calm and only respond to oppose comments if truly necessary. More reading material is at WP:GRFA which I recommend reading before continuing. When you're ready, to officially accept the nomination, say so on the page (and write a statement if you wish), answer the questions, edit the closing time to reflect when you accepted, and add your entry to the top of WP:RFA. Good luck! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 12:10Z

(from User talk:Quarl) Thank you very much for the (well researched) nomination, and the barnstar! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; keep up the good work and good luck on the RFA, looks like it's going well :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:06Z

List of multiplayer features in Xbox 360 games

Thank you, I will give it a go, sorry a bit new to all this I hope I am following correct protocol. GarethRees 22:26, 16 February 2007 (GMT)

blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock vote

As you have recently contributed to the blink-182 article you might be interested in casting your vote towards reaching a final consensus on the bands genre, Pop Punk or Punk Rock, votes can be cast here. cheers mate --Dan027 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Davidbrock.jpg

Image:Davidbrock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Davidbrock.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adam Sessler

Thanks for your notification on the image I uploaded of Adam Sessler. I uploaded the image on the best interest of finding a better image that reflects the subject at discussion. It seems it does not satisfy the needs of Wikipedia, so it can be erased. Punkalicious 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're now an admin after unanimous support on your request for adminship. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure. Keep up the good work. Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your unanimous promotion! Let me know if you ever have any questions... —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 02:33Z

Good luck on becoming an Admin. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page

And of course you miss the entire point which deals mainly with having no rules about usertalk pages owned by IP addresses. Thanks a lot for being so kind and considerate. I'm sure you're just flowing with wiki love and compassion.

BTW might I suggest that you read this --Socko123 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again I would suggest that Wikipedia make a page that deals with issues pertaining to talkpages and also a better policy on IP addresses that wish to remain only IP addresses.--Socko123 06:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also it needs to be pointed out that the IP Address is used by multiple users and you blocked the ability to create accounts, perhaps someone from the IP would want to create an account and contribute to Wikipedia in a positive fashion. --Socko123 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This account had been made before the IP had been blocked and yes I in fact have been blanking the talk page, I find there to be no reason to continue to keep past warnings on the page.

If you would look at the edit history of the IP the warnings have all come from editing the user talk page which, I do not believe is strictly prohibited, especially after the sentence of blocking has been served and there is no reason to keep that clutter around. To repeatedly get warned and blocked for deleting past warnings and blocking simply shows the reckless abandonment of due process for blocking. This only demonstrates to me that Wikipedia is less like a community of intellectual writers and editors and is more like the Wild West. Anyone with a "gun" (if you will) has the power to eliminate whatever he deems necessary without have to go through any due process and/or put any thought into the matter. Soon editors become heartless automaton that take no time to read edits or even involve themselves in the subject matter because the only thing that they feel they can do is fight the unrelenting fake edits. I believe sometimes that if an administrator was slapped in the face with a good and legitimate edit he would only revert it because of response conditioning.

Point: If the edit history of this institutional IP where checked you would find (though it is a long way down the list because I've been trying to clear the usertalk page for about a month) that there have been edits that have in fact benefited Wikipedia. I spent a good couple of hours putting united warnings at the top of pages without citations. You do whatever you feel is necessary, but know that I have lost much faith in the project because of the manner in which I have been treated by these bot like administrators. Have a good wiki day.--Socko123 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So not to kick a dead horse but would it still be "vandalizing" now if I removed the talk page jargon now? Thanks for being civil by the way.--209.137.175.59 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you have finally made me stop stressing out about this dumb talk page thing.--209.137.175.59 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Congratulations on the adminship and thank you for the barnstar. It is really appreciated. Rettetast 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bud Spencer

Hello, Why was this image removed?Charleenmerced ^Talk 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

65.120.148.3

Hi. Please note that this IP has vandalized at least 5 pages in the past 5 days. It's a school IP - how much has it contributed content-wise? None, so collateral damage isn't a concern, and can be solved easily through a soft block. Kids in school don't vandalize all day - does this mean they can do it once a day and get away with it? Please also note that they vandalized after my v4 warning - the last warning is not a real one. Xiner (talk, email) 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's harmless. It makes the page that much less professional, and if I hadn't investigated the user, it'd not have been reverted just an hour after it happened. It's the innocuous-looking edits that go past reviewers. It also takes time to revert the changes, post warnings, etc. No vandalism is harmless. Xiner (talk, email) 18:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can read pretty well, and that edit makes no sense at all. But what does it matter? Xiner (talk, email) 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Could you take a look at this please? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully the cleverly disguised "copyedit" on Lance Armstrong's article. I reverted the only substantial change the IP made - a change in numbers. Xiner (talk, email) 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Every other reference I found says less than 50%,^[1] but alright, I'll let it rest. Xiner (talk, email) 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

My bad but if you are an admin shoulnt you add the image on the front saying you are? :)

Also, My name is Jon, I have a wiki pedia account, just forgot to log into it lol

66.14.16.160

Can you help me out here? This account was given a last warning on Jan 5th. On March 1st they re-appeared and vandalised the Scotland page. (Their only other three edits in the intervening period were also vandalism). I reported them at WP:AIV, and your note says: 'only edit was several hours ago, before warning'. Was I supposed to give them another 'last warning'? Yours, perplexed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and understood. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!

My first purple heart.  :) It is much appreciated. Corvus cornix 22:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandal revert

Glad to be of any service. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

The H. P. Lovecraft photo I uploaded was an actual author photo, but the author died in 1936. I thought that means the 70 year US copyright rule applies, and it's now in the public domain. Can you amend the rationale accordingly for me? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying it is a photo of H. P Lovecraft - I don't know who the author of the photograph. As he died in 1936, that means it was taken 71 years ago, and after 70 years I assumed photographs and copyrighted works end up in the public domain. My knowledge of copyright is only basic, so am I incorrect? LuciferMorgan 20:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was 70 years after the photo was copyrighted to be honest, which would've made it public domain if it was copyrighted at the time the photo was taken. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The photo was taken 1936 or before - though I don't know the status. It's been a learning curve, so I'm grateful. LuciferMorgan 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Band_of_stability_1.gif

Image:Band of stability 1.gif was deleted because it was not inline with Wikipedia fair use policy, please don't upload it again. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, how? You never said how, defended your reasoning, or explained it, you just deleted it both times. -23_PatPeter*∞ 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First I know you did not delete it first, it was Geonian or someone. Second, by you not defending it by that I mean how does it not agree with the fair use policy? And could I not have changed the licensing? Maybe I was confused and the licensing I gave is not set in stone. Maybe I did not understand a licensing and accidentally picked it.

I did try to do whatever I could to appeal to Wikipedia's standards, so instead of fighting against me can you not help me? -23_PatPeter*∞ 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Image talk:Band of stability 1.gif (Ok then, what are Wikipedia's requirements? Could you please cite the line and article, I am not going to go page hunting. -23PatPeter*∞ 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

When I saw this, I laughed hysterically. Thanks for blocking User:Yafnir, because he was making some weird pages. Cheers! Real96 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Constant (and somewhat unaware but annoying) vandalism

Hello. I'm in help for dealing with constant vandalism on page: MTV Unplugged: Korn. The case is someone constantly replaces b-side song which I made two footnotes for to make it fact with other song unrelated to this album, and I think it happens because these two songs contains the same line (No One's There) and that person presumably thinks I'm making mistake by putting "No One's There" and replaces it with title "I'm The One" (which is unrelated to this album, so it can't be a b-side, nor it was ever mentioned as a b-side, while these 2 footnoted songs are b-sides, and I put a lot of effort to make these footnotes). I'd like to get some help with dealing in this problem. I'll be very grateful. Thank you in advance. Broken soul 10:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again. My question is: what should be done for the article to be reviewed and to receive "good article" tag, and how can I apply article MTV Unplugged: Korn to these criteria? Broken soul 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Alcarillo/browncoat

Why are you reverted edits that I made to my own Talk page? Alcarillo 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Empanadas.jpg listed for deletion

Possibly unfree Image:Bassguitarpickups.jpg

03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)