User talk:Butseriouslyfolks/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Osho.jpg

Hey, thanks for sorting out the fair-use licence for this image. I had already reconciled myself to there not being any picture at all. Jayen466 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I've had a go at the fair use rationale – not that I can claim any particular expertise in this sort of thing:
The present image is a low-resolution scan from a paper brochure (some print is visible on the first version posted). It depicts a notable individual and is included here for the purposes of identification and encyclopedic reference only, in the article relating to the individual concerned.
It has not been possible to obtain a free equivalent of this image. Hundreds of similar pictures can be found at stable locations on the web, but despite this practice of free use, it is believed that all these images are technically non-free. The individual depicted died in 1990, meaning that there is no possibility of any Wikipedia user taking a current picture and GNU releasing it. The use of this picture in this article will not conceivably impact on any originator’s commercial opportunities.
The individual concerned was much photographed in his lifetime, and pictures of him appeared many times in the international press. His image is therefore widely known. However, he changed his name shortly before his death; therefore, absence of any picture in the article might impair identification and lead to confusion.
I would be grateful for your feedback; do you think something along these lines would be sufficient? Jayen466 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Jayen466 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Sure Deal, now can you expain?

I am thoroughly confused and there is no definitive on Wikipedia on how to proceed. I would like to add my company to Wikipedia and yet there is no real instructions on how to do so. Instead I get messages about how I am breaking the rules. Then to top it off you delete the page I created, can you please help?

Dremeda 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

dude, wat was wrong with MASIPAG

i mean it is temporary information. after numerous edits on MASIPAG, the text will soon be more 'wiki' than text copied from a website. I recommend adding MASIPAG again. It is an important foundation as is the Eden Foundation. Both are companies which deserve recognition as coporations which strive to improve conditions for farmers in poorer countries. (Shokwaav 05:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10014derek (talk • contribs)

oh and btw the information from http://www.intracen.org/Organics/Country-Profile-Philippines.htm was also copied from www.masipag.org/ you know. That website and I did the same editing... (Shokwaav 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10014derek (talk • contribs)

User page Babel

You should not use so many languages which you do not understand. You should 'use it not for every language that you don't know, but only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it.'

(Shokwaav 05:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10014derek (talk • contribs)

i guess that's what it means... (Shokwaav 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10014derek (talk • contribs)

DELETED Joseph Niego Page

Dear Admin, I see you show the reason as: (copyvio of http://www.sephardicstudies.org/school.html) This page was written by me as well (Denis Ojalvo), and hence I hold the copyright of the content. This is an updated version of what was posted there, I am still in the process of learning how to use all the wiki tools correctly. I would appreciate if you can put back that link so that I may update it and put up the necessary documents and references.

Thank you very much, Denis Ojalvo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.18.218 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Russkiye Vedomosti

Hi. I notice you've deleted the Russkiye Vedomosti article. The text it is based on, clearly sourced with link, is in the public domain. Please undelete it. --Soman 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All the texts of Lenin uploaded on www.marxists.org are public domain. See [1]. --Soman 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire document is pd. Soviet union did not abide by copyright laws until 1973. --Soman 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So who would be the copyright holder today? Progress Publishers is no more. Moreover, the text were not actually edited by Progress, but by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. The editing process of these documents started well before 1968. There was never any individual credits for the editor of these works. That was sort of the policy at the time. To apply retroactive copyrights to documents released into the public domain internationally since long doesn't really hold, the soviet union never intervenes in any way when Lenin's works were reproduced abroad. --Soman 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing PUI

Hi. Could you do me a favor and when you close a PUI as keep, make sure to remove the tag from image page? Keep in mind the instructions at the top too: mages that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{subst:puir}} added to the image talk page and a copy of the issue and/or discussion that took place here put on the image talk page as well. The Evil Spartan 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mary Margaret Whipple

You obviously don't know anything about copyright law, and do not understand that ideas and facts are not copyrighted. Literary expression is copyrighted. There is nothing about the Mary Margaret Whipple article that constitutes a copyright violation.

You should be ashamed of yourself and should show more consideration for the original (not copied) work of others. I think you behavior is very arogant and shows no respect for others.Racepacket 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "George Washington was the first President of the United States." has appeared hundreds of times in print, as has "Joe Baseball player batted .347 last season." One would have to view the overall context to determine whether there was a copyright violation, whether there was fair use, whether there was common authorship. If you have questions, leave a message on the talk page of the author or of the article. Wikipedia will not retain contributors (including people who studied intellectual property in law school such as me) if they have to repeatedly repost their work.Racepacket 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for deleting that personal attack image. Everyking 11:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Pujyapada

Hi, this is regarding deltion of article Pujyapada by you as it is a copywrite violation of http://www.gohgk.com/servlet/Detail?no=15 . In this regard let me submit the following :

  1. The copy was made only to create a stub and as a starting point for Pujyapada. If you see end result of the article it is totally different from what is on the website.
  2. The site belongs to User:Manish_Modi check out the site :- http://www.gohgk.com/servlet/Service. He has confirmed the following :-
  • It is not a copywrite violation
  • He himself has done edits on the article

If my explanation is acceptable, please re-instate the article. Thanks--Anish Shah 11:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnome

I understand you're knowledgeable about copyrighted images, and how Wikipedia policy applies to that. Someone keeps adding an unlicensed (and modified) image, Image:Andy_gnome.jpg, to Gnome, or variations on that filename, to Gnome. It seems to be humorous in intent, but I doubt the encyclopaedic nature of its inclusion; it remains unlicensed.

Any help or advice you could offer would be great. --Old Raw 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Old Raw 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What do I ought to know?

Yes, I'm an angel. Angel David smiles at you :). But what do I ought to know? O_o--Angel David 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bruininks

There are only so many ways to write out some things. Smith03 04:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) thanks for the peep talk ;). I had stumble upon the article and saw it had deleted. I was attempting to make a useable stub of just factual information from the orginial article.Smith03 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

About Declined speedy

True, but given that high schools tend to survive AfD, I don't really think it's worth nom-ing. (Plus, it'll probably eventually open, in which case it should have an article). If it stays that way forever, then maybe I'll revisit it. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for cleaning it up too. --Bfigura (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MFD

A page you recently commented on is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Image talk:Ferrari Classic.jpg, please sto by and comment if you wish. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He's tall

He was 5'7" when He was human and when He was immortal--HUGANTINORMOUS!!!!!!!!!!! Of course He was a baby. But He's an adult now.--Angel David 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Greenbank Raiders

Could Greenbank Raiders possibly be deleted as non-notable? -WarthogDemon 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes vandals are a GOOD thing! It was from one that I discovered it. :) -WarthogDemon 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


afactor

Greetings You commented out a deleted photo in article Alex Hutchinson This is used in an article about Alex Hutchinson, he supplied the image with permission to use it. I thought this was acceptable. Am I mistaken, did I choose the wrong copyright? Am new & found this area very confusing, any help would be appreciated Afactor 06:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Afactor 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

MLK

Hi Butseriouslyfolks - I've followed your suggestions and have written another wiki about Marie Louise Kold. Hope it's ok this time. I mostly used the same material as before, but all's been rewritten in my own words and from a neutral, descriptive standpoint. Jorboruk - 2 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorboruk (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RICHARD BARONE

Please stop deleting images from Richard Barone's page. Any image that is posted there by Robert Banks is copyright-cleared through Richard Barone's management. They are clearly marked for free use, and it is frustrating that we must always replace these deleted images. Richard's page has been developed and scrutinized by some of Wikipedia's top editors. Thanks, RobertBanks, Richard Barone Music rbm.mgmt@earthlink.net.


Dear Butseriouslyfolks, Thank you for your policing the pages of Wikipedia, but I consider this a form of vandalism. These are my images, the website you are referring to is mine, as are its contents and my image. Please leave my page alone. Thank you, RICHARD BARONE : richardbarone@mac.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbanks (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Nat Fein

What proof do I supply for the text I wrote? I am working with Nat's estate to get the article up so please restore the first version as it it free and clear from any legal repercussions. When you restore the original version of the page, I will tag it with GNU.Sixstring1965 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hey Butseriouslyfolks, you've speedy deleted Sustainable Development Association, which was not a candidate for WP:SPEEDY, and it was sourced as well. Would you please explain what's 'A7' that you have mentioned as a reason for deletion stands for? Thank you.--TheEgyptian 11:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Sustainable Development Association is a very active association in Alexandria that contibutes to education of young people, just like wikipedia spreading knowledge to everywhere. So please revert what you did, and if you wish you may tag it for deletion, or use the {{notability}} tag.--TheEgyptian 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not ignore my request.--TheEgyptian 10:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, So please retrieve it so I can work on it, and if you wish you may tag it for deletion while I try to prove its notability.--TheEgyptian 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for correcting my errors regarding moving Kilmadan to Kilmodan. Lesson learned. :-) Gavin Greig 14:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ontario Paramedic Association

Please restore the Ontario Paramedic Association's page. It was created by the Ontario Paramedic Association with information taken from OUR website. There was no copyright infringement as I created BOTH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.23.152 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your block review...

... made me laugh ;). I hope to be back at SCV soon, when I find the time. -- lucasbfr talk 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 ?

If you could have waited a second, I would re-formulate and develop the article on the basis of the info given by the university. --Z yTalk 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Beykent

Well it was a web page..In the end written by me and friends. But of course you can not know that. BUT yes definitely it should be re-developed. S.else's text is a web page which will be reformulated soon probably by a professional intervention which may include me again. Just FYI.

--Z yTalk 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Community Innovation Survey

Dear Butseriouslyfolks,

I put up a page on the CIS today, and you speedily deleted it, for two reasons: copyvio and A7. However, the copyvio had already been taken care of (but I didn't want to delete the template myself, so I started a discussion on the talk page, hoping someone else would stop by and have a look at it). The A7 I don't fully understand yet, althought I have read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Criteria. I'd like to have a second go at the article. Classical geographer 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jammie Pic Deletion

No problem! Just trying to show a picture of, as you so well put it, the kind of people the RIAA pick on. :] Tubeyes 05:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Good thinking BSF! I will definitely give it a shot! Tubeyes 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Marie Louise Kold

Hi, a few days ago you deleted an article I put into Wikipedia on the Danish artist Marie Louise Kold. The reason listed was that it was a copyright violation of the Saatchi site (which was written AFTER the original wiki appeared about her... and in any case, the latest version was substantially different), and because it was "spam". Not sure I understand. Can you please explain what it is that you found objectionable in the page so it can be reinstalled without the offending parts? (Jorboruk 15:16, 26 September 2007)

Frank Welker

Hi, I noticed you deleted Frank Welker image. Please reinsert. It belongs to Frank Welker and he has given permission for it's use. Thanks. Keep up the good work. 30 09 07

Gonzalo de Pedro

Hi. Why you deleted the Festival Punto de Vista article? I don´think it´s SPAM. There are several articles about film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, etc), and you don´t delet all because there are not SPAM. Please, restore the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalo de Pedro (talk • contribs) 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger B. Baron

Hi. I think you were wrong to blank this page after I had done so much work to resolve the copyright issue. Please reconsider. Deb 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't claim to be the author, the peron who started the article does. But I think it's a shame to lose the article altogether when a bit of work can easily be done to improve it and remove the copyright issue - much of which I had already done when you blanked the page. Deb 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The subpage you quoted was leading to a copy of the talk page, not the article. So I got around it by just editing an old version of the article. I still don't think blanking is a good way of approaching an issue like this, but all's well that ends well. Deb 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Alba de Céspedes y Bertini

Can you explain to me the copywrite violation in this article? As far as I can see I rewrote the article using the info in the article and took out many things out of the article. Callelinea 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

KatieJane Garside

I uploaded an image of KatieJane Garside earlier today after having received permission from her to do so. You seem to have deleted it. May I ask why? Avalyn 22:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Pujyapada

Refer to our discussion on Deletion of Article on Pujyapada. You suggested addition of a notice to the source webpage that its contents are licensed pursuant to the GFDL. That way, the text can be safely used here.

Please note that this notice has been added here. http://www.gohgk.com/servlet/Detail?no=15

Now please kindly reinstate the article. Thanks--Anish 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your Help.--Anish 08:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sisa

May I ask why you deleted that above mentioned article?. You are a new admin and I did change the article to make sure it doesn't violate any rights and I even added the link to the site.Just because you are an admin give you NO-RIGHTS as to delete an article you know nothing about so Please, I'm asking you to not do a silly thing like that because you just Templated me by doing that and making me feel like a NEWBIE,and THANK YOU, cause from now-on I will not CREATE any more articles, THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!..--Cometstyles 04:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't copy it but re-phrase most of the articles and I would like to ask you to create the same article for me without using information from the only website which has information on it because believe me, these aren't American football or Soccer players article and they do not have controversies and its not that easy to create article on them let alone a stub which gets deleted by people who have no knowledge on that project and only then I will apologize and if not..then stop deleting articles on things you have no knowledge off..Thanks.. and regarding the Template, I ain't that Dumb, I know it was left by a bot but what I meant was that you DELETED and article by an experienced editor and that is worst than Templating them :) ..--Cometstyles 05:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
heh, you don't know me do you ?, you can ask anyone, thats how I joke when I removed the comment from my talk Page, I now that it was a bot, but since most people on wikipedia have no/less sense of humor, I should stop being humorous and straight to the point,regarding what you said, this ain't the first time someone deleted my article without properly saying that they were deleting it on my talk page and secondly, I will not apologize to Trigger happy knowitall but knowsnothing admin.. Thanks..--Cometstyles 05:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Atlast the first person to apologize to me ever (there are so many stubborn people out there :P ). Why don't people take me seriously Image:cry-tpvgames.gif (I need a better catch-phrase), sorry but name-calling is the only way to get a persons attention or else you get ignored :P ..thanks anywayz.. P.S You can call me whatever you want, I don't really mind :) .. --Cometstyles 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

promotional follow up

Granted, such a statement as the one you point out here "Over 100 years after its inception, the firm has emerged as a leader in several of its litigational and transactional practice areas in response to the increasing demands and complexity of its clients' needs" may be in violation of being "promotional", but how do you reconcile your ruling here with the following pages:

Skadden#Reputation - if this entire section isn't considered promotional then I'm afraid you've completely lost me. Debevoise_&_Plimpton using the word "prominent" - promotional? Simpson_Thacher_&_Bartlett#Associate_Compensation - "led the market" - promotional? Sullivan_&_Cromwell#Founding "From its earliest involvement in the formation of Edison General Electric Company in 1882 and United States Steel Corporation in 1901, to its present work with leaders of the global economy in the 21st century, the firm has been closely involved in the affairs of some of America's, and now the world's, greatest industrial, commercial and financial enterprises" - promotional?

Even if such statements, are in fact promotion, is it your policy to delete the entire page without warning?

My main question is: Can all of these pages be rewritten rather than automatically deleted?

EDIT: nevermind, I just read the Why was my page deleted? so I see it is possible to put the page back up just so long as it is formatted correctly.

I will be sure to remove anything that could even remotely be confused with promitional statements, and I will also be sure to comb through the article to make sure that no text is copied.

Can I run the page by you in the near future to get the thumbs up?

Burning Sands 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Law Firm follow up

Upon reflection, perhaps the Day Pitney site did appear promotional in nature. The same could not be said, however, about the Heller Ehrman site. Moreover, any direct quotes that appeared on the page were given proper citation to their original respective sources. If this was overlooked on a particulr quote, rather than deleting the entire Heller Ehrman page, might you or another admin simply point out the section in question so that it might be corrected?? I was under the impression that Wikipedia encouraged expanding and correcting articles.

This onoe was written in an objective tone, was encyclopedic and was in-line with the style/type/tone used by the other 160 pages dedicated to law firms listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_the_United_States Until this morning, the page was a part of this category and a few different users had contributed to it in some form or fasion.

Moreover, the page contained a considerably informative history of the firm which chronicled its relation to the other institutions that were intergral to California's history from the time of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 until present day. This took quite a few days and a lot of effort to compile from multiple sources (all given credit) and after having reviewed the list of what wikipedia is and what it is not, I believe the page was deleted in error.

Is it within your ability as an admin to restore pages that have been recently deleted? If not, may I and others recreate the page for your/other admin review?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Burning Sands 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


History of Law Firms not Commercial Material??

Confused... The law firm sites you deleted are no different than any of the other 160 sites listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_the_United_States

Please restore.

Thanks

Burning Sands 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy of a deleted content

Hi, I'm gonna create some brand new pics and repost the Military ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Army asap. If I can have a copy of the deleted page, my job will be easier. Just paste it in here. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 07:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So kind of you :) I'm gonna upload the commissioned ranks into commons coz I the one who create those. Rest of those right now I'm gonna change into fairuse as like this one Image:China-navy-2000-dress 16.gif Will it work? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 07:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well then World Insignia Collectors Union is violating the copyrights of the Sri Lankan tri forces and the police :D So I do not think uploading pictures with fairuse will cause any prob to Wikipedia :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I discussed this issue with Videmus Omnia and later I re-uploaded my images and re-set others into fair use. Further, he contacted Quadell for further clarifications. Now both of us are waiting for his reply. Thanks for all your help up to this moment. Good luck and happy editing!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 13:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have revert my copyright tag adding on Commons.[2] Please goto this page and decide your self whether I create those images my self, or I violated their rights. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 08:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I started my work with wikipedia in the middle of August and that was my very first time. Until this year I did not have a knowledge of the Wikipedia procedures too much. That is why I had made a mistake. I used the green base from uniforminsignia.net and added the other parts to it (I think I used MS Paint). When I was uploading all the pictures I mistakenly copied the same fair use rationale and other fair use tags and forgot to claim that it is mine which I create my self. I create my Commons account on 24 December 2006 and since then whenever I create an image myself I release it to commons under free license.[3] Though the licensing was wrong initially it is now correct isn't it? If you still think I violated copyrights of them, do a metadata check and a google search on the net to verify that the images I claimed are mine were actually created by me. Cheers. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonid Fedorov page deleted. WHY?

Hello, Butseriouslyfolks,
Would you be so kind as to explain WHY did you delete my "Leonid Fedorov" article??? The explanations given at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Leonid_Fedorov do not seem satisfactory to me, because:
1. "spam" - this is NOT spam. I made this page myself, specificially for Wikipedia, in one and only updated edit. Now, do you mean it is lost forever? I spent a few hours of my precious weekend time making it.
2. "A7" (articles that do not satisfy notability) - Very very arguable, depends on the criteria you use. For English readers, can only things that originate from the English-speaking world be worth of any notablity? As far as I know, many would not agree with this.
3. "copyvio of http://www.leonidfedorov.ru/about_e.htm" - You should have looked more closely. Mostly yes, it repeated that text - because I am the author of both. You can't expect me to write two completely different bios for one person, can you. And then again, I updated that text so that it would fit for the present moment. So this was NOT a copy of another text, that was ME rewriting MY text FOR YOU.
So, i believe that this is enough explanation on why that page should have been left on wikipedia. Well sometimes one can come across some unexplainable rules at the others' websites, this is not a big news, and it may easily turn out that what is reasonable and commonsense for everyone, does not work in one specific place. This happens. But at least I will hope that I can get the text, that I spent some of my precious time working on, back to me so that I could use it outside of wikipedia.
Thank you for this in advance and I will be waiting to either see the Leonid Fedorov page restored, or to get my text back to me so that I could use it for other purposes.
Yours,
--M birukov 12:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If the text if from your web site, you already have it, don't you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's read closely once again: "I updated that text so that it would fit for the present moment. So this was NOT a copy of another text, that was ME rewriting MY text FOR YOU." I wrote it in the original message, didn't I? I'm sorry to ask this, but - do you people at wikipedia READ the texts you delete or you reply to??
I somehow believed that the text will be preserved here; I didn't expect such rush with the deletion.
Then, you wrote "there were no sources or information that would verify that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Don't worry; if he really is an important musician, one of his many fans will inevitably create an original, sourced article about him." Oh well, ask Marc Ribot or John Medeski, if you know who they are... And then, "one of his many fans will inevitably create an original, sourced article about him" - why not ME?? Isn't it sourced? original? Why not? I don't understand this.
And still, I want my text back. Thank you in advance.
--M birukov 13:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Heller Ehrman

Another editor asked me to review this deletion. Before sending it to WP:DRV, I wanted to ask about the copyvio you mentioned in your deletion summary. I ran a few sample phrases from the last version of the article through Google, but failed to get any hits. What sections of the article were copyvios? Thanks, Caknuck 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Rajnish Mehra article

Can you please restore the article ? I changed the language from the original page, and got rid of possibly copyrighted content. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgandalf (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the deletion of Re.press page

Hi Butseriouslyfolks,


You deleted my page that I created for our publishing house re.press as it was deemed to break copyright. However, I am the copyright holder for the publishers website and I am happy for it to be duplicated. Is it possible to have it back up please? I noticed that the other publishers largely take copy from their own sites for their wiki pages.

Additionally the publisher operates under open access principles and our authors can publish their work OA if so desired.


Thanks for your time

Paul Ashton publisher re.press —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulnigelashton (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not abuse your Admin rights

I am the webmaster for http://www.bluecrosshyd.in/ and I am creating the wiki page for Blue Cross of Hyderabad. When I am the owner of the copyrights of the web content, why can't i use it here? Does this argument sound any good to you?

You could have left a talk on my page right? just like you ask me to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkkarthic (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

re.press notability and COI

Basically I am surprised at your response to my article. I see many publishers with websites that are clearly COI or marketing driven and they offer nothing to the publishing world. Reed for example boasts massive profits made on their page which are extracted from governments around the world with high priced journals that cost 20K a year to subscribe to (not to mention their connections with the arms trade), but re.press, a publisher that releases titles as open access and give 100% full viewing of all books is some how a COI! We consider re.press to be a serious intervention into publishing as opposed to other companies who are profit driven. Paulnigelashton 09:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio at Bleach GC (series)?

Hey, BSF. I noticed you rearranged one of the sentences in Bleach GC (series), calling the previous version a "copyvio." While I have no problem with your edit, I am curious as to how it is a copyright violation to mention a company and a mangaka making a new character for a game. // DecaimientoPoético 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, the site seems to be a forum and the thread creator copied the text directly from Wikipedia. It happens a lot, despite people (normally fans of a video game) always critisizing us because of the vandalism. // DecaimientoPoético 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

G Simon Harak and Jean Marie Malecki

Please help me understand how I can avoid your deleting these types of articles in the future. I cited all my sources. I understand copyvios, but, I am not wholesale plagarizing entire profiles from a single source and I am properly citing my sources. Plus I find it very difficult to state someone's education background in different words. And before you just delete the articles can you please at least give me a warning and opportunity to improve the article. There is nothing more frustrating than discovering that your article that I spent some time on was deleted without even a notification. Stagophile 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Corry

I have examined what you are saying and have spoken to David Hull (Peter Corry's mamnagement company) and I have changed the tag to suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peter_Corry.jpg I think that this is the correct tag. Austenlennon 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon

G Simon Harak and Jean Marie Malecki

Do you have a copy of these deleted articles? I am hoping to avoid having to research the articles again. I will the revise the text according to your recommendation. Thanks.Stagophile 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I.

[4] - vandal only account (now indef blocked) decided to have a go at several admins. I suspect they'll be back again. Just to let you know! Pedro :  Chat  08:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

di

Why did you delete image? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Corry

You are right! It is complicated. If you could advise me which tag I should use it would be arreciated. Peter Corry has stated that he allows full free use of the photo and that the photo rights belong to him. So which tag should I use as there are no restrictions on it's use. If I can get this right here then I can make sure that the many others that I have put on a right too. Austenlennon 11:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon

That was fast...

Coren!

That was fast. I'm in the middle of editing, with an Underconstruction tag and fixing the text your bot highlighted, and boom, my article is gone. What was that, 15 minutes? Perhaps you can point me to the sandbox, I know there is one, but can't figure out how to use it.

Sonnet 122

I see you deleted this a day or two back. I'm proposing recreating it, along with Sonnet 117 and Sonnet 121 to complete the set. I'm just laying down the structure now, and will add commentary later (honest!). Any problems with me recreating it? All the best, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, dude :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Re this message. I was horrified that you did not rap the kid's knuckles for doing the move at all! How do you justify the capitals on "wolf researcher"? -- RHaworth 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Derrick Gardner

Michael Hardy is giving me a hard time because I deleted a math article, mistaking it for CSD A7 (bad judgment call on my part). Anyway, he's now up to ridiculing me for any deletion I make. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that I have ridiculed this user nor am I going about attacking his every deletion. I have, however, paid some attention to his deletions after I noticed that his talk page has complaints from various users about his excessive haste in deleting articles. Michael Hardy 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Erika Ringor

Hello,

A few days ago you deleted/removed images of Erika Ringor. They are her personal photos that she posted herself on erikaringor.tripod.com which she is the owner of them. She will attempt to upload them again. Please let me know if there might be a problem. Since she is the owner of the footage she should have permission to post her photos correct?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMA2007 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD

In this edit you said this will have to be discussed on the talk page. As I pointed out, it already was. Michael Hardy 02:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

re.press 'opinion'

Sure if it is just 'my opinion' that: a cooperative that seeks to change the rules of publishing by allowing authors to make their work OA and readers read their work for free while saving the environment (through reducing wastage) are more worthy (or at least even equally so) than huge corporations that systematically rip off governments and individuals due to the inelastic nature of demand in academic publishing, then I am happy to hold this opinion. The problem is why are they allowed to basically make people aware of their product (when they do nothing notable) and we are not. As you imply wiki is democratic (excluding the fact that big coporations are given more of a voice than small cooperatives) if what we write is not 'true' people can edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulnigelashton (talk • contribs) 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

MacLaren image

You put a message on my profile saying that i might breach copyright by putting on my photo of the Clan MacLaren tartan and crest. How come? I took the photo myself and whilst I didn't make the tartan or the crest it is mine. Any advise? Thanks! Cls14 12:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you point but couldnt that be true of very many things? There are book covers and CD covers and thing on here too that are bound to be copyrighted. Cls14 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So theoretically then if I drew the photo I had just taken myself then it would be ok? Cls14 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Psycotics1454 unblock request

Hi, Psycotics1454 (talk · contribs) posted an unblock request at his/her talk page. Could you check it out, and elaborate on why you think this user is a sockpuppet? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, first of all you ask me a question and then make my discussion page uneditable so that I could not answer. Why did you do that ? In response to your reply, my IP address is 83.67.100.248. The other user, Mjgm84 is 195.137.109.177. Not the same!, Your first big mistake. Secondly, in regards to my statement "I used to have a different username" I was actually refering to my IP address from which all my earliest edits were made before I had a username. Thirdly all of those images you deleted were correctly tagged in accordance with Wiki guidelines, I can prove that. I even went to the effort to get the owners to agree to the licencing terms and I still have their email responses. As a result if you do not unblock me I will contact the head of Wikipedia directly and report you with detailed evidence to back up my points. You do not have enough evidence to say I am anything more than a Suspect and certainly no proof that I am a "Sockpuppet", which I am most definatley not. Your actions are obviously not for the benefit of Wikipedia but for your own self-gratification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.100.248 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio request

Hi, could you clean/delete the article Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities for me. Since I was the one who tagged and to avoid a COI I don't want to do it myself. See the talk page of the article and User talk:Garion96/Archive 9#Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities. Only if you agree it is a copyvio of course. Garion96 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that editor's history you (and me) probably would need a lawyer. :) Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Could you please delete the image Image:Isps gate.jpg, it is currently in copyright violation, since the image isn't mine. Sfacets 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you that the image is a copyvio. If you read the discussion, you will see that I admit to the mistake, and that the image was and is not mine to upload, let alone release under an unrestricted license. Assuming good faith is a simple matter. Obviously you have some problem with this [5] and so I would tend to think that your opinion is biased in this regard. Sfacets 07:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:LM1998...

...is continuing to add unsourced material to SpongeBob SquarePants-related articles. I'm letting you know becuase you've threatened to block them if they did it again. Thank you. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking. I reported them first to AIV, but it was removed because the closing admin thought they were adding it in good faith (which they clearly are not). NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reported a possible sockpuppet, User:SBLM1998 to SSP and have requested a checkuser. Just letting you know. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bare Toes? Good Thing I Am Wearing Slippers!

Seriously, who is our friend? -WarthogDemon 06:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh . . . okay, the bare foot thing makes sense to me now . . . and had I known this beforehand I would not have picked the title I chose for this section's header . . . ew. -WarthogDemon 06:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Any Children's Films?

Did you make an article about children's films? I would like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Military insignia images

We have a huge problem with military insignia images taken from http://www.uniforminsignia.net, which apparently claims copyright on its versions of rank insignia. I'm positive the Israeli rank insignia came from there, as well as the Korean insignia. The linksearch above doesn't fully reveal the extent of the problem; in many cases, it appears that people have given no source, simply claiming public domain, or have given a fraudulent or unverifiable source, as is the case with many of the Korean insignia. I'm not positive that the website's copyright claim is always 100% valid, but they could probably make a case that the images they produce are derivative improvements of public domain images, which they would have a right to license. I would welcome any ideas on fixing this problem, I'm running into a lot of resistance on taking care of this. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is at the Commons too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I tagged a bunch from Sri Lanka for deletion at Commons recently. -- But|seriously|folks  04:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Most were uploaded because of that false insignia template that survived for a few years. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
{{Military-Insignia}} User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This has now made the admin noticeboard here. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me

How can I edit WP:BANNED? P.S. Is this username innapropriate? Banned user editor 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Query on why images were deleted?

You recently had a bit of a deletion frenzy on medal ribbons - for example - Image:VietCamp.gif Can I confirm that this was because you believed they were blatant copyright infringements?PalawanOz 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alot of those images probably should be deleted, but I dont think you had the authority to make that determination yourself. It would have been far better to have tagged the images and at least let people take a look at them. I've asked other admins to look into it. I am sure you meant well, thoug, dont get me wrong since most the images did look fishy. No hard feelings here. -OberRanks 11:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Auschappoint.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OberRanks 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OberRanks 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That's appreciated, a lot. Neil ☎ 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist

I wasn't around when the above user was banned, so I don't know the full story. Based on the image contribs I'm running across (Russian/Chinese military insignia), I'm tempted to believe this user was somehow related to User:Roitr. (I've been flushing out a lot of Roitr socks in the process of getting Roitr copyvio deleted - I had 5 long-established Roitr socks indef-blocked just yesterday.)

I appreciate the help with copyrighted images from uniforminsignia.net. There are still hundreds to clean up but I think I'm making headway. I'll eventually have to head over to Commons to work them there as well - a lot of the copyvio that was uploaded by Husnock and others has been transwiki'd there. I hope to get the images using the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} template all cleaned up or deleted within the next couple of weeks, then we can delete the template so that it doesn't cause us any further misunderstandings.

User:Beetstra is on wikibreak, but when he gets back I'm going to ask if we can somehow harness the spam linkwatcher to spot new uploads from uniforminsignia.net. I'm sure that the majority of people taking images from there are acting in good faith, but we're going to get in trouble eventually if we keep stealing from them. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Issue with Stephen D. Mumford

Thanks for pointing me to the copyright issue - I rewrote the article and included a link to more detailed biographical info in the reference section. --Thewolf37 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanx!

That was my first vandalism. I appreciate you watching out for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

captured German photographs

are public domain in the United States, see reply from NARA to email sent by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pharos/NARA and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/supremecourt/main510937.shtml and http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-1111.resp.html. To mark a captured SS photograph as copyrighted in the US is incorrect. Atomsgive 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can dispute an email reply from NARA to a wikipedia administrator, these images and documents were invested as U.S. property in the 1950s, the German government does not claim copyright over captured SS records in US holdings, in any case, you would have to delete other images if you want to mark this image as copyrighted in spite of no evidence that it is in fact.

for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg, this was marked PD with the same rationale that you dispute Atomsgive 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"No known restrictions on publication"

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html  :) --Iamunknown 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons images

Please do not remove images you nominated for deletion from articles. A bot will handle the task more efficiently should the images get deleted. Not every deletion (even speedy ones) get deleted. -- Cat chi? 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop mass deleting and removing rank insignias indiscriminately. Medals of the US federal government are public domain just like all Federal works by the US. -- Cat chi? 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not removing images indiscriminately from articles. I'm removing copyvios from articles. While medals issued by the US are certainly public domain, photographs and drawings of 3D objects are entitled to copyright protection, just like photographs and drawings of public domain objects like landscapes. Medals issued by other governments may have an additional level of copyright protection (in the design of the medals themselves). The Husnock situation has been discussed at length in many places over time, including most recently here, here and here. Just because a copyvio image remains on Commons does not mean I should leave it in place in Wikipedia articles. If you have further questions on this complicated situation, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but commons cant see all that (the discussions). I also do not see a speedy deletable images. Please restore them back to articles and initiate a case at commons:Commons:Deletion requests as this is as you point out a complicated case and not obvious. If it is really a copyvio, it will be removed by a bot and can be restored just as easily if for any reason the images get undeleted. Process is very important if we are juggling 2 million images on commons. I would ask you to have a bit more patience with it. -- Cat chi? 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy to let Commons take its time deleting the images. My primary concern is with en.wiki. There is consensus here that most of Husnock's images are copyvios and that he generally misrepresented his sources (where he identified them) and as an admin here, I am entitled (if not required) to remove them from articles while Commons takes its time deleting them. Husnock uploaded thousands of images to en.wiki, and probably 80% of them are copyvios. I have been working my way through them, looking at each one and making a determination whether it should stay or go. As you can see from Husnock's upload log, I have left hundreds of images in place. (I'm working from the most recent uploads backwards in time.) Anyway, as I said above, I have no problem with Commons taking the time to get up to speed on this issue and take action. But we have already worked through it here at en.wiki, and these images can't be used here. If you have questions, please feel free to ask me. If you simply disagree and do not feel like discussing it, please feel free to take images to deletion review, WP:MCQ or WP:FUR, or you can start another thread at AN/I if you want. I won't be offended! Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Imagine a case where commons community rules that these images are not copyvios... By removing them like this in advance you are complicating things for commons and commons people. You are actually strongly discouraged from removing images until discussion concludes in commons when there is a chance that images may stay. There is no reason to rush things and we do have bots that can take care of the task more efficiently. I as a commons admin do not see an acceptable reason to speedy delete these images as it is not obvious. They may be still deleted via a commons:Commons:Deletion requests discussion. You can make a bulk nom. -- Cat chi? 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with bulk nomming them is that they have different issues and were uploaded / transwikied by different commons users. I've been nomming them individually as I come across them based on their use in en.wiki. For my information and guidance, do you know of a policy at en.wiki relating to use of / removal of Commons content? As I'm sure you are aware, many persistent infringers turn to Commons as a place for uploads that have been deleted from en.wiki. I have no idea whether it's true, but there is a belief out there that few people patrol images at Commons and that less obvious copyvio images are therefore less likely to be deleted at Commons. (This is typical of the information I see circulated. Incidentally, the recipient of this particular message is a reincarnation of Husnock, the one who caused all of this.) Also, are you saying that I have been removing images without nomming them? If so, it's unintentional. I'm trying to be careful, but it's possible I've missed some. I am required to remove redlinks from deleted en.wiki images. Finally, if you would like to discuss specific images, I'd be happy to do so. Just leave me a note here as I don't often check my Commons user page. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, what I am saying is unless a nomination isn't an automatic deletion, it should not be mass removed. We have bots that can preform delinkage (removal of images from wikipedia, wikisource and all other wikis). It does not matter how many people have moved/uploaded images to commons. Bulk noms can be conducted in a topic spesific manner. On commons we take copyrights more seriously than on any other wiki. People on commons are (for the most part) specialized on image related issues. Unless a deletion is obvious (these aren't obvious) deletion must follow the commons:Commons:Deletion requests process. So PLEASE follow that. I will not be nominating these images for you as I normally would (I am a bit busy with other matters). -- Cat chi? 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I am confused why you decided to roll back many of my edits at Commons. The templates I replaced specifically say: "If there is no proof for the public domain status of this work, please replace this tag by {{nld}}" (PD-USGov-NARA) and "Please check the copyright status of this work and replace this tag with an appropriate copyright tag" (Military insignia). I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert at Commons, but if you don't want the tags replaced with {{nld}}, the template shouldn't tell people to do that. Also, there is no appropriate license tag, as these images are copyvios.
I am also concerned about your interpretation of copyright law. Specifically, you reverted my edit to Image:Txlmoh.jpg, inserting a template that indicates that it is PD because it is a work of the US Government. But it is not a work of the US Government. It is the work of the State of Texas, and therefore protected by copyright.
Like you, I am busy and don't have a lot of time to deal with the Commons issue right now, but just to show you the degree of this problem, I took the time to find the source for a few of the stolen images. Maybe these examples will help:
  • Image:NewSSColonel.gif
  • Image:SS2ndLTptch.gif
  • Image:SSCaptptch.gif
  • Image:Ogrupfhr.gif
Seriously, you can do what you want at Commons, but we cannot allow copyvio images to be used here at en.wiki. You can keep them as long as you want, but we will delete them when we see them used here, per consensus here that they are copyvios. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Look at the date given on the template. Is the upload after the given date? No. Therefore these are not speedy deletable.
Stop treating me like an alien from outer space, it is quite rude. There is no "we" or "you" (plural) here.
I told you already. As a commons administrator I do not see them as speedy deletable as it is a close call. In other words I need opinion of other people on commons. My decision is not absolute and I told you at least four times to use commons deletion requests. You are making life unnecessarily difficult for yourself. You will need to restore those images if commons consensus rules them not to be copyvios as per WP:CCC if not common sense. I will not clean up your own mess.
We have a working system in dealing with possibly problematic images and what you are doing is only complicating that. If you do not have the time to file a commons deletion request, perhaps you should not be removing images from articles. It takes less time to make a bulk nomination on commons than remove images from individual articles. At most it is the same amount of work.
-- Cat chi? 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to use me or commons as a means to resolve your personal dispute with Husnock. If the images are problematic you can simply file it on commons deletion requests and community can decide. -- Cat chi? 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That was uncalled for and warrants an apology. I have no personal dispute with Husnock. AFAIK, I never heard of Husnock or his apparent reincarnation OberRanks before a week or so ago when I became aware of the hundreds of copyvio images he had left us.
What does the upload date have to do with my edits? The sentence about replacing the tag with nld is set apart physically and in a different color from the sentence about uploads after a certain date. I think it's an extremely strained interpretation of that template to claim that it should only be replaced for recent uploads. How long should a deprecated template remain? I just posted about this question over at Commons. Feel free to join in that discussion.
Also, as I told you before, I thought I had tagged all of the images I removed for one or the other of the Commons deletion processes. If I missed a couple, I missed a couple. I'm dealing with several hundred images here. Please stop making me out to be some kind of scofflaw.
Finally, I have asked you for some authority that consensus at Commons trumps consensus at en.wiki. I would think that would have come up at some point. If there is no policy on that, then I am properly removing copyvio images from articles based on the en.wiki consensus. -- But|seriously|folks  08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I told you at least 6 times so far. You NEED to use commons:COM:DEL. These are not obvious cases and hence are not speedy deletable. When an admin contests nld that is for the most part the end of story as far as speedy deletion is concerned. In such cases we use commons:COM:DEL. The discussion on en.wiki has no binding bearing on commons. Discussion over the copyright status of commons images should be conducted on commons. I really am tired of repeating myself.
Deprecated templates stay forever. It should not be used at all any more. As for past uses they should be processed. Most rank insignia are ineligible of copyright much like flags of countries. Country flags had a similar license confusion and commons community is familiar with such cases of problematic licensing.
-- Cat chi? 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please use preview so I can get a word in edgewise. -- But|seriously|folks  08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons needs a cleanup also on all of these copyvio military insignia images - you're right, a lot of Husnock's copyvio (along with Roitr and others) has been transwikied there. I guess I'll try to tackle it after I clean up en Wikipedia, but it will probably take a while. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jammie Thomas Picture permission

Hey BSF, I got permission from Jammie to use a picture from her myspace, I've posted the myspace conversation that me and Jammie had on my wikipedia talk page (so as not to spam up your talk page), I am awaiting your further instruction in regards to her response being good enough to use her picture on wikipedia. Thanks Tubeyes 10:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BSF, you rock the house out to the max! -Tubeyes 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha

okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.100 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Street-West: article has been edited by editors claiming to be associated with the subject

Hi. Thank you for pointing out several major errors associated with the Nathaniel Street-West Wikipedia page. I am quite new to Wikipedia as you more experienced editors can readily see. I can see that the article needs far more documenting to the proper sources and I am working on a reasonable system for doing so. I have read many Wikipedia biographies of musicians and where as some have a footnote for practically each and every sentence, many more are written in a looser format that lists sources but without pasting numbers and footnotes all over the place. This will take some time, however the material will be properly sourced. On a more serious note, the messages that were left in association with the photograph uploads in this article in no way implies that the photographers who logged in under the "Penny Lane" editor claim to be (or are) associated with the subject. I can see how it would be confusing for several photographers to log on using the same editorial user name. I see the error now and from this point on there will be no more than one person (editor) logging on as PennyLane100. Unfortunately two of the photographers/artists who uploaded several image files (Image:American Way Cover Art.jpg; Image:Witness Cover 300px.jpg; Image:Nathaniel Street-West in 2006.jpg) by logging in under the PennyLane100 editor name identified themselves as being associated with Puffin Records. This is because I requested the images from Puffin Records and the employees misunderstood the ground rules for how to identify themselves and the legal status of the photographs. As the editor PennyLane100 I am not associated with the subject and neither are the photographers who logged in as "aliases" of PennyLane100 associated with the subject. I requested images of the subject from Puffin Records and the people who logged in as “aliases” and uploaded these images at my request misunderstood what to write. I am the sole editor of the initial text & page design (before other editor's recent corrections) and hold myself responsible for all errors. I am uploading all new photographs for this article and any photographs I request from Puffin Records I will ask to have sent to the Wikipedia Commons if at all possible. Our webmaster devised the plan to use one editor username for the whole page so that the photographers could simply log in as PennyLane100 and upload, and was confused by the immense amount of data ruling who may and may not claim a copyrighted image, and by the many different licensing regulations and this led to the mess. Nevertheless, I am taking all responsibility for this embarrassing debacle. There is no conspiracy here. The people who logged in appropriately (me) and inappropriately (those we asked to log in as a convenience) as Penny Lane100 are not in cahoots together in any diabolical way. My biggest concern is that I have embarrassed the artist, Nathaniel Street-West, by thinking of him having to suffer through the egregious and threatening warnings plastered across the top of his Wikipedia page. AT the very least, I am requesting that the "conflict of interest" notice be removed from the head of the page. I am also requesting that other editors refrain from accusing me of having some undue conflict of interest in relation to the subject. (By the way, who is the person in charge of removing these notices?) Again, thank you for your help! I hope this clears up the situation and I will be passing this on to the other editors who mentioned a possible conflict of interest. (Apologies for the long message!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PennyLane100 02:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response

I've dug around on the Canadian Forces public web portal and found the Copyright statement and so forth, which I pasted into into the Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. If/when you have an opportunity, I'd appreciate your further feedback as to whether it jives with the {{non-free symbol}} definition. Thanks again.    ¥    Jacky Tar  05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Trixul deleted

The copyright violation is bogus. I am the author of Trixul toolkit. I am the owner of Trixul.com, I wrote the text on Trixul.com that was modified for the wikipedia entry. So, I have the right to replicate portions of it on the wikipedia page.

Please restore my work to wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I really question your authority to remove the content, and the motivation. If Einstein were to write a page about General Relativity, would you yank it because he happened to be the one that came up with the Theory? My statements were factual, are bound to be helpful to someone, and should not have been removed because you question the motives. My motives are to explain, authoritatively, what that toolkit is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


What Einstein would do is not really relevant, especially since he is dead. :-) Ok, so, I just recreated the page, in my own words, and very minimally, so someone else can fill in the details. I'm not a spammer.

Also, I'll look into more formal ways to resolve this, I am sure there must be some kind of review process. Not looking for a fight or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the Business guidelines. This is about an open source project, not a business, so I am a bit confused why all the excitement over it. It's getting late, I'll study this more later. Eventually, someone will create this page I imagine, with or without me. :-) Slogan621 06:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So, please explain why the pages on gtk, wxwidgets, qt, and all other GUI toolkits like the one I described aren't deleted by you as well? They are all open source projects. I'm having a super hard time understanding what value wikipedia has, if such things can't be described here, and I sure would feel better if you treated them equally (actuyally, don't, I'm sure it would lead to a mess). Slogan621 —Preceding comment was added at 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Flag of Canada
Flag of Canada

I gave you the sources from which the images were "borrowed". Please explain to me how copying images created by another website is not sufficiently obvious to require their speedy deletion. While you're at it, you could also explain to me how simply removing SD tags is preferable to replacing them with the proper tag, as I am careful to do at en.wiki. Because if I happen to be correct that these are copyvios, your conduct is preventing them from being reviewed by others and keeping them here. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I need to better clarify what I am doing to you. Here it is.
Why I closed as keep:
  • Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright.
    For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible.
  • "Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
  • Nazi era material may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
  • The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.
These above were in my mind for consideration when I closed the speedy nom as a keep. Hence why I closed the speedy deletion as a "keep" or "too close to call" at worst. Commons have dealt with images from en:Flags of the World site. They were eventually deleted after free alternates were made. While FOTW images were never copyvios, we are nice enough to redraw better alternatives and delete them afterwards. This is why most flags have an SVG version actually.
Why have I not retagged:
  • If I had that kind of time I would be processing commons:Category:Unknown. I am only expected to either delete or keep the images. I am not even required to inform you of my decision or even talk to you at all.
  • My decision was a keep and it would not be right for me to file a commons:COM:DEL request on something I closed as keep (per coi).
  • Also as a result of all this you are now more familiar with the commons process in handling non-obvious cases. I learned about it in a similar manner. On en.wiki an admin removing a PROD notice as keep does not have to replace it with an afd. For the most part a nomination is the problem of the nominator and not the processing admin.
Process on commons and why it is important:
  • On commons "reviewing" of non-obvious cases are conducted through COM:DEL. Majority of cases on COM:DEL are alleged copyvio cases. Speedy deletion is only and only for obvious copyright violations such as TV screen captures or corporation logos.
  • During a deletion discussion the images in question should NOT be removed.
    • commons:Commons:Deletion requests has a lot of images being discussed. If they all were removed from articles as you did with the rank insignias, this would have created an unnecessary amount of workload. Images may be deleted or kept. This is not a big deal and happens daily.
    • We have bots that will automatically remove links to images from articles of deleted images from commons. Manually doing it is unnecessary and problematic.
    • We however do not have a bot that will readd images if the discussion ends up as "keep".
    • Also on English wikipedia images that are suspected of violating copyrights are not removed from articles until they are deleted. Typically the closing admin removes them or sometimes there are red links.
  • Process on commons should be observed. We deal with over 2,041,655 files on commons. Thats over 40,000 images since last threshold pass (2 million) on October 13. It is common to have 5,000 new images a day. These processes are designed to handle this work load with minimal use of resources.
P.S. can we keep this discussion on one wiki?
-- Cat chi? 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, a lot of that does make sense to me. I would argue that these stylized, "cartoonish" if you will characterizations of patches and badges are sufficiently creative to acquire copyright protection, but that's a discussion for another forum. I thank you for taking the time to fully explain your position and how things work at commons. (I know from my adminship here what a pain that can sometimes be.) Sorry if I was being think in the head. -- But|seriously|folks  16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am glad we understand each other better now. I put serious amount of thought behind any admin action I take and sometimes forget to appropriately explain myself. Sorry about the late explanation.
I would encourage you to restore the insignia images here on en.wiki until the commons discussion concludes. They would be re-removed with an appropriate link to the commons discussion by a bot if they do get deleted. Do you see the advantages of this?
-- Cat chi? 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh by the way I merged your request to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Nazi SS rank insignia images for a more effective bulk discussion. I hope you do not mind. -- Cat chi? 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

I was just logging on to clear the backlog, and you'd already dealt with it. Cheers! On a more serious note, I'm going to be offline for most of this weekend (health issues), and may not be able to get to it as often as I'd like. My apologies.  :( — madman bum and angel 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Nobel Prize image

Hey there again! Concerning the image on the Nobel Prize[6] page, it looks like three Americans won the peace prize before 1923, the first being in 1902. So, there is no doubt it had to be published at least once within that time (therefore no longer copyright). User User:Jheald has also come to the same conclusion for what they posted on the Fair use review page. In terms of the image itself, I had both the Nobel Prize and image pages fully protected because NYScholar kept removing the image and marking it for deletion. Today, however, the user left this message on another admin’s (Jéské Couriano’s) talk page making them believe that there is a copyright problem with this image and that it had to be removed and it was, in fact, removed earlier today. NYScholar has been very forceful and, at times, uncivil (his block log seems to prove this also) when working with other users (not to mention he fills pages with pages and pages of nonsense/repetitiveness) and in order to prove their point. I think we’ve established that there is really no reason to remove this image as trademarks are allowed on WP and the copyright issue seems pretty straightforward (although the tagging might need to be updated). If there is any problem let me know. Thanks for your help in this matter. Best, aNubiSIII (T / C) 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Signature(Wow)

Hey,how do you get that awsome signature?Coolgirly88. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 ???

Why is my article being deleted 10 secs after its creation for copyright reasons? Maybe I needed to see how does the article look like before I start editing it such that it would not have and copyright violations!!!!!!! Nergaal 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you know I did not talk to the owner of that specific site or that I did not create the information on that site myself? Go to hell you annoying policemans! You make editing wikipedia NOT ENJOYABLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are incredibly smart! Did you know that? I am writing about the title of the country X and in that article you are telling me I should add: "This article includes text from the Wikipedia article X." Oh my, let wikipedia be full of unexpanded articles that people stop editing because some people who have nothing better to do with their lives than to sit in front of a computer and be administrators on wikipedia. How do you translate this into English: you are a failure!Nergaal 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


For what it's worth, I believe that Nergaal has a very valid point: Butseriouslyfolks is often overzealous. StevenBlack 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft maps

Hi again. I tagged some images the other day as having no fair use rationales. On these two

  • Image:World of Warcraft Eastern Kingdoms Map.jpg and
  • Image:World of Warcraft Kalimdor Map.jpg

someone added Rationale: Media for informational purposes of the software in which it is contained, and the geography/data thereof to both and removed the tags. I have restored the tags, saying invalid rationale provided; no source, for example. And I am unsure if I should have. First off, I see now (and don't know why I didn't see it at the moment), that the source is the game itself. A detailed rationale should be more than this, right? I believe that screen-shots are way over used and that many editors believe 'a few' is the same as 'as many as possible'. I'll go with whatever you think best here. Thanks, Jack Merridew 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

civility

I have done my best to be civil to you. I would appreciate you making more of an effort to be civil to me.

I do my best to take all serious, specific concerns that I do not compliance with policy seriously.

When wikipedians avoid discussing others concerns about their perceptions that they are lapsing with compliance policy I think a point comes when characterizations that they are POV-pushing becomes appropriate.

But do I take others concerns seriously.

I expect them to take me seriously. And I think this means that those who disagree with me should regard those disagreements as good faith difference of opinion, and that characterization that I am POV-pushing are inappropriate. Geo Swan 01:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Listenability

Butseriously, I was surprised that you did not have a page for listenability, which is an important but understudied issue. I worked all day and did my best trying to correct this lack--complete with the most important references. You deleted it, because, as you claimed, I violated copyright of two documents.

Strange, the documents that you cite were ones that I wrote and of which I own the copyright. I was aware that I was copying material from my own texts, and I gave the proper references. I also was not aware that one could violate one's own copyright. If you want a page dedicated to listenability, let me know, and I will see what I can do for you in language you find acceptable.

William DuBayBdubay 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored that page. Michael Hardy 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

LOC

A tangent off of the no restrictions on publication stuff... the LOC's website is difficult to navigate.  :-( There are still so many images that haven't been uploaded... sometimes I just view them, and the breadth is amazing.

Regarding public domain images, have you seen http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp? Some Commonists and other Metapedians must be active on that site, because all the images I intended to upload were already uploaded and cropped.  :-)

Do you know, however, of any other sites like that related to the other U.S. armed forces? That would be cool. Lots of free photographs of actors, actresses, country singers and WWE wrestlers.  ;-) There was even a photograph of one actress at the Tribeca Film Festival!  :o

Anyways, good to hear from you.. sorry for the late (tangential ;-) reply. --Iamunknown 05:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Dude, you need to chill. Do you not see that it's patently ridiculous to be labeling articles for deletion in the first hours of its appearance?? A warning to you, sir, that I do not intend to be bullied by you. Understood? Please leave the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper article alone for a few days. Thank you. I have removed the notice that you sprinkled into the topic. It's just silly and heavy-handed action on your part, and I will not tolerate your unilateral BS at thus early stage of the topic. StevenBlack 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please bee aware that you are essentially vandalizing pages within their first hours of appearance, and I consider this to be bullying and this will not go unchallenged. You cannot say you have not been warned. Again I am asking you politely to chill, and give the topic a few days to flesh out. Thank you. StevenBlack 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not see your transparent bullying with TWO prose tags on young Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. Tell me, what is the process that I can use to stop you from bullying this article? KNOCK IT OFF! StevenBlack 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I noticed that you said that articles must meet WP:N from the time they are posted on WikiAlert. I happen to agree whole heartedly with this. However, there are millions (?) of articles on Wikipedia that do not, some of them having been created as far back as 2002. I sometimes am brave enough to put a notability tag on such an article, and I have spasms of tagging articles as unreferenced (or no footnotes if the article is long and just has a bunch of external links at the bottom) but this behavior on my part is highly unpopular. What is your practical view on how to handle these issues? --Mattisse 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I did at one point tag fairly often. Then I was pursued by a sock puppet ring unmercifully for over six months. It was only accidentally that the sock puppet ring was discovered. The case involving the main article finally went to Arbitration in December of last year and one of the arbitrators recused himself from the case and tracked down the sock puppets. This was after an endless Mediation Cabal (the mediator subsequently turned out to be a sock puppet) and an endless RFC on me and endless sock puppet accusation on me and endless ANI complaints on me. This all began over me adding fact tags to several definitely non notable and spam-filled articles - all by one person promoting his business. And all the articles linked to each other and to other articles of famous people that had nothing to do with it and to the business person's external sites.
Those articles, and the mother and father articles with their link farms and external links to his sites, are still on wikipedia today. And the proprietor is still adding to them. They were cleaned up immensely by the sock puppets and friends but they are still link farms for the business and its external promotional sites. Arbitration was tolerant. The proprietor of the business being touted in these articles wrote an article on himself. It was up for AFD when the arbitration began, and one of the arbitrators voted to keep it. In effect, the COI issues were blown off by the arbitrators. I think the mentality is more rigorous today. But I still find it dangerous to do much. I urge you to be careful. --Mattisse 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What saved me I think was that I was never uncivil. I just learned recently a second point: never joke. I made what I thought was a minor joking comment recently and the person got highly upset and even "retired" for a couple of weeks. It was explained to me that my comment was just the "last straw" but still, now I realize how very easily anything can be misconstrued. --Mattisse 20:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

McAuliffe

Butseriously,

I am in the process of creating a page for Christa McAuliffe School, and you come along and delete it seconds after I create it with a note that it doesn't have enough material! It has more material than most of the other pages in the same school district. And I'm just starting on it. (I had more material, but a bot complained that I had copied some bullet points from the school's site, so I deleted that section while I think about how to deal with including that key information without complaints about violating a non-existent copyright.)

Don't you think it might have been nice to ask me about it, or add a discussion to it, rather than jumping in and killing it in its infancy?! I've restored the page (under a slightly corrected name). If you have a problem with it, please contact me or create a discussion rather than immediately killing things that are trying to take root.

Jiraffe 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Excessive user sig

Can I ask you to consider taking less visual and markup bandwith with your sig? Thanks. StevenBlack 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking 131.215.xxx.xxx

These are general IP addresses assigned by the DHCP server on the Caltech network (i.e. multiple users share them). Please unblock them immediately. Mcduff 06:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I discussion about you

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive315#User:butseriouslyfolks_-_Harassment. --Iamunknown 07:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While you're over there, since I keep bumping into you today, I was wondering if I could get your opinion here, if you have the time and wouldn't mind commenting. --Cheeser1 11:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Street-West

That article talk page is getting awfully messy what with newly registered users coming in... Do you recommend just hastening to an AfD? Or is it wise to wait until after the PROD? ScarianTalk 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done, up for AfD. I tried my best at writing something that would influence people but I realised that I'm not so good at it. Would appreciate your thoughts on how I did? [By the way, an I.P. and I had a good laugh at your comment on my discussion page :-] ScarianTalk 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just read what happened over at WP:RPP early this morning. In a weird kind of way, I'm honoured to be accused of being your sockpuppet :-D Haha. Cheers, friend. ScarianTalk 11:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)