User talk:Chowbok/Archive 7

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

Image:Brandeis shapiro.jpg

Like I TOLD YOU BEFORE. I received permission from Brandeis for the use of this image. If you don't believe me, you can contact Dennis Nealon, Director of Media Relations (nealon@brandeis.edu) and I'm sure he will tell you the same thing he told me.

I don't know why:

1. You don't believe me.

2. I have a particular obligation to prove it to YOU when my word seems to be good enough for everyone else.

3. You seem to have a jones for this picture.

4. You are the arbiter of what constitutes "in dispute"?


Lay off this one already, it's getting tiring. Alight 02:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't I just post the email? Simple, because it's a private correspondence and I've already bugged the guy asking permission for the pictures. Now you want me to bug him again asking permission to post the email asking about the pictures. This is getting farcical. I've told you he gave permission, by asking for "proof" you are flat-out saying I'm lying.

Since you clearly don't trust me, why would you trust any email copies I posted? I could have forged them. Should I ask the guy to re-send them with a digital signature?

As to your statement: "I'm going to nominate these for deletion again. This is getting ridiculous. Anyone could just go to the same spot and take new pictures, there's no reason why we have to wait for weeks to get permission to use these." There is NO NEED TO WAIT FOR PERMISSION, IT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN. Again you are assuming that I'm lying. Do you have such fundamental distrust for humanity at large, or just me?


Since I'm not someone who can be trusted on an issue such as this, why don't you contact him yourself?Alight 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand how I could be "mistaken" about this. Either I got the authorization or I didn't. I'm telling you I did and you are demanding that I prove it. Clearly you think that either I'm lying or I'm a moron, either way I'm offended. Posting someone's email to a public website is a serious breach of basic email etiquette, and I'm not going to do it. I did the hard part, seeking out the permission and getting it. Deleting images that other people have worked hard to obtain is quite easy and you really seem to enjoy it. Perhaps you don't have any other outlets in your life to exercise authority and bullying people on Wikipedia is how you chose to manifest this. I suggest you get some other hobbies, it would improve life for all of us here. Alight 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so speculating about your "motives and character" is off-limits, but calling me a liar is on the table? Ok, fine let's just stick to the facts at hand (which you seem to not want to address).
1. Why should I be forced to reveal a private email correspondence, when I've already stated that the authorization has been given? Is there any other possible reason, other than that you doubt my veracity?
2. Given that my attestation is not good enough, why would you accept ANY documentation from me?


Alight 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Anyway, if you're still nervous about posting the e-mail publicly, how about this for a compromise: forward it to <permissions@wikimedia.org>. That way, it won't be available to everybody, but Wikipedia administrators will still be able to refer to it in case of a dispute. How does that sound? —Chowbok ☠ 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"
I did that last month. Which is what I told you at the beginning of this little song and dance. I never received the "confirmation number" that is supposed to come as a result. I know you have no reason to believe me, and you probably will not think this "proof" is good enough, but here is the header from the message I sent (with my email address excised):
From - Wed Dec 06 20:50:46 2006
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <45777376.3010508XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:50:46 -0500
From: Alan Light <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
Reply-To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Wikipedia images of Brandeis]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------090303040701090807060908"
Alight 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
On 12/29 I posted on your talk page that I was awaiting a confirmation number.Alight 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny that this should pop up on my watchlist; I processed this permissions email on December 12. The permission granted in the email was not, unfortunately, sufficient for use on Wikipedia; that is, the release was permission for Wikipedia only to use the image, which is a more restrictive license than we accept. I emailed the Brandeis representative explaining this circumstance and requesting a release under the GFDL, but have not received a response since that time. --RobthTalk 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. You mean after all the outrage, it wasn't in fact GFDL? Imagine that. —Chowbok ☠ 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Robth: I'm not sure what email YOU were reading, but NOWHERE did it say ANYTHING about permission being given for Wikipedia ONLY. I've forwarded him a copy of the GFDL and am also awaiting a reply. Alight 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

James Blake Pic

Thank you tons for pointing out the "NonCommercial" license fact on Image talk:JamesBlake.JPG. I did not see that as a problem, since I assume Wikipedia was not-for-profit, thus disregarded it. Again, thanks for pointing that out in a non-demeaning way. :) Warm Regards. Captain Courageous 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration. . .

I offer {{replaceable short}}, for talk pages that already have a few instances of {{replaceable}} on them (there are, as you know, many). Edit it, nominate it for deletion if it's useless, whatever, but there it is if you want to use it. Chick Bowen 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

{{rfu}}

Would this image fall under RFU? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Sheila Hixon image

Hello. I am new to the image portion of Wikipedia, so hopefully I can gain some understanding from you. I've been edited content for a while, but decided that there was dearth of political figures from Maryland, so I took it upon myself to start adding them. I reviewed the information on fair use, but I found it confusing and I posted questions, but never got any responses from anyone.

I reviewed many other political photos and found that many of them came from the same places and used the Template:Promotphoto tag. Do the offical state government websites not count as free and fair use? If not, how would you go about getting free images that can be used? My attempts to contact mdarchives.gov have been futile and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that since other images had been used from this website, that usage was permitted.

If this method is unacceptable, I would like to gain insight as to a better way to go about it. I'm making up the process as I go, so help is appreciated. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallstreethotrod

Images in articles

Hi Chowbok, I was trying to apply a bit of layout clean-up there. I am curious why you do not approve? Thanks. Jim CApitol3 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC) By specifying the size, wouldn't the page present consistently user to user, without adjusting prferences, etc.? CApitol3 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Final question, Kim, is there a place on wiki where these sorts of rules/policy is posted? I am just trying to make the visual appearance of some pages cleaner, more refined, less visually noisy/bumpy. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chowbok. I guess I am still curious how much of this is codified wiki policy, and how much is your aesthetic, or philosophical beliefs? I am not trying to make anyone march lock-step here. But design, as a vessel for text and pictures, is often so intertwined with content as to be indistinguishable from it. Some questions I have: are all images to be presented as thumbs? Why can we adjsut sizes if it is forbidden? I see really great value in wikipedia, but also some limitations in that graphically it can really be something of, from the perspective of a web and book designer, a mess. THe promise of unique individual experiences of web sites has great promishe, I think it's great to allow different "skins" and looks, and and typographic defaults as people so choose. But as a web designer, often there is an intent to present a consistent shared experience, across audiences. Thanks for listening. Jim CApitol3 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) P>S, I rememebr seeing your page sometime last fall or even late summer, and LOVED the picture of the little skeleton trick-or-treating!

Campbell's Soup Can image sizes

It seems that you were selective in the images that you removed the sizing commands from. I am just worried about the feedback that I recieved during FAC1 regarding images being too large and too abundant. I guess you are suggesting just using the small size commands in the variations section and having slightly larger (by default) images in the other sections.

By the way, how do I set my image sizes? TonyTheTiger 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Soldier field images

I have been trying to add a panel of images to Soldier Field. They keep getting moved around. I have tried with smaller images. Tell me what you think of them since you seem to be an image person. TonyTheTiger 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barbara Bouchet in La Dama Rossa Uccide Sette Volte.jpg

Please delete this image, thank you, --Tovojolo 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

You seem to spend an awful lot of your time tagging images, Chowbok. What a pity you can't spend your time doing something more constructive - for example replacing them with an image that you do consider to be acceptable.

You know perfectly well that low res TV captures are permissible, as are publicity images, and book covers. One of the pictures you have removed was actually taken by me. But then we both know that this isn't about what's permissible. This is about the fact that you enjoy exercising what little power you have.

I'm not interested in having a conversation with you - neither am I interested to trying to argue the case for these pictures, because lets face it you would only sit in your mum's bedroom at the computer frantically mashing your fingers on the delete key every night until I eventually gave up anyway. So do whatever you want, and enjoy whatever pleasure it gives you.Mikejstevenson 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Gluskoter Images

Please clarify the tag you would like me to use when indicating form of license. Can this modification be made without needing to re-upload the same image ? FYI: These are all my personally photographed images, no copyright infringement in any way. Thank You for your compliment, you are correct in that I am simply trying to improve the appearance quality of these pages. I have a lot more to add, but am getting quite agitated at seeing my images removed, whether they are replaced with inferior images or leaving pages without any photos....... Dannyg3332 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Chowbok,

Thank You for the concern you showed in your message to me. While high-quality photos, I am uploading them at a small enough resolution that they would not be of adequate quality for anyone to be able to profit from enlarging them.Dannyg3332 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Appreciate your expertise here: Having continuing conflict with user repeatedly uploading inferior quality image of Michael Stipe. No desire to play games here, anyway to control this ?Dannyg3332 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


No problem with the tag, but I've got some knuckle-head repeatedly replacing an obviously inferior image they took for the image I uploaded..... Thanks for any guidanceDannyg3332 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Under licensing, I've been selecting "Own Work" CC 2.5. What am I missing ? Again, thank you for your guidance, my goal is to improve the site, not aggravate or waste my timeDannyg3332 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Will do. Thanx AgainDannyg3332 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yoshinobu Launch Complex.jpg

Good day,

The only problem I can see with this image is that I used the wrong tag. What tag should I use, then? JAXA allows the use of much of their materials for educational purposes, for example. Maver1ck 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They clearly say we're allowed to use it for certain purposes, and I believe Wikipedia would be included as "educational". What more could we ask for? What would JAXA need to do in addition to let us use their images? Maver1ck 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Concern over Daniel Gluskoter Images licensing

User:Dannyg3332 has retagged several of his images using cc2.5, as I see you recommended on his talk page. Unfortunately, however, he has included the verbiage "All rights reserved" in the license section, which contradicts cc2.5, and actually makes them all speedy deletion candidates. As you have already been working with him on these, would you be willing to continue to assist him in getting these images tagged correctly? As well, the metadata includes the statement "all rights reserved", as well... not sure what needs to be done there, perhaps a re-upload after modifying the metadata? Jerry lavoie 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dutrochet.jpg

Would you care to elaborate why this image is being deleted in a replaceable criteria? Although I am not the person who uploaded the image, I doubt this image can be replaced. The article, Henri Dutrochet, is that of someone who died in the 1800's. Therefore its nearly impossible for a non-copyrighted replacement of the image. I googled the image and it came up with only a few images, all of them nearly the same as the current image. If i have been mistaken about any of this, please notify me. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:A_Certain_Smile.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A_Certain_Smile.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation 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. Iamunknown 03:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

American Princes

Ah, my mistake. You are correct. I have deleted. Teke (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bally Professional Arcade

This image was removed after it was tagged RFU. How exactly are we supposed to get an image of a machine that no longer exists? I left a comment about this on the talk page, but I see the image was removed anyway, and it appears you didn't comment there. Maury 12:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather odd way to describe the situation. The link you placed on my talk page points to a page that I had never seen before. Because I had never seen the page (it did not exist when I uploaded), it was obviously not on my watchlist, so there was no way I could possibly know about it. Generally when replying to a question or post you post back to the same page, but in this case you "replied" on some completely hidden page. Nor did you put a pointer in the article talk or my talk informing me of this. Everything was done in a way that was completely invisible to me. As a result I did not reply, and I assure you, I would have, and so the motion carried by default. To see you dismiss my complaint with a "but I did reply" wave of the hand is simply beyond the pale. Next time, please make sure everyone involved is clearly aware of the situation. Maury 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
News to me. I don't recall creating this page, nor is it on my watchlist. That's why I didn't reply. And when I didn't reply, given that I had made these comments, you didn't find that the least bit odd? Maury 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I consider the RfU specious, and because I didn't reply the image was simply deleted anyway. As a result someone else has uploaded an image that has effectively mashed the entire article, and now it looks like a PoS. That's my complaint. So, now, how do we get the image back until there has been a real debate on it? Because every second we wait, finding a free replacement becomes ever more difficult. After all, they're not coming out of the landfills... Maury 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

About the Cow tipping page

Hello, I have been the one removing the image. I don't want to start an edit war from this image. I think Gracenotes caption is pretty good if the image is kept. "An unsuspecting potential victim" just sounds too humorus for an encyclopedia. Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Are encyclopedias supposed to be amusing? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Removing RFU notices

Thanks for your comment. I'll keep that in mind for next time. enochlau (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


RFC/discussion of article Cow tipping

Hello, Chowbok. As a prominent contributor to Cow tipping, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Cow tipping, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cow tipping

Here's your consensus. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguments on the talk page are not that the caption is neutral or policy compliant, they're that we should make an exception. My point is that policy of NPOV and ATT has a much broader consensus than any special exception based on "I really like it." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple, can you find a reliable source to attribute the claim that it is unsuspecting to? Otherwise it's just your opinion, and that's POV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No. We need to be able to cite everything, even if you claim the sky is blue. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An overall problem with the argument is that working on the basis that there is a class of content that is "too obvious to require sourcing" actually results in a bad encyclopaedia. "Common knowledge" that is "obvious" is often wrong. Whereas requiring that everything be sourced leads to a correct, if surprising to many people, encyclopaedia. A classic example of this is "The sky is blue.". As Dpbsmith so eloquently points out, writing an encyclopaedia based upon this "common knowledge" actually leads to a factually incorrect encyclopaedia, because, for one thing, the sky is not always blue...

The cow may very well be aware; as the article suggests, it would be hard to sneak up on a cow to tip it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question

Hi, how do you revert a picture back to what it was originally? Thanks Adelyna 05:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suoerh2 (talk · contribs)

hi Chowbok, i have a question about an image, is there where i leve you a msg? i think this is the right place. pls let me know - sh2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suoerh2 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 April 2007.

Request

Hi, I notice that in the last 6 or so days, you've made eight reverts to the cow tipping caption, one without an edit summary, and have edited the talk page twice, both times to just refer to earlier discussion. Could you please use the discussion page to discuss the merits of the caption like the rest of us? Milto LOL pia 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Anon Edits

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Your recent reversion [1] of an anonymous editors contributions did not have a valid reason. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, however, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Thanks. Quartet 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested comments

Since you have been vocal on the cow tipping caption, would you mind voicing an opinion on "A cow in its natural upright state" on bottom of the Talk:Cow tipping page? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I do not understand your comment about images on my usertalk--Migospia 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving Abu badali has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. You have expressed an interest in this before, so please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

Thanks, - Jord 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

explain

  • I am confused PLEASE explain!!--Migospia 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But the images reveal a current band for promotional use, so how is that not fair?--Migospia 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How could it not be one of them? I see it could be used for Nine Inch Nails and etc why no these bands?--Migospia 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Still does not answer my question as to WHY can't they be there?--Migospia 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Example?--Migospia 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Confused me again I am talking about these bands that you claim are not fair or free I am still unclear as to what makes them not free and fair--Migospia 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • why does this template exsist-Non-free promotional--Migospia 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures stay

What do I need to do to make sure the pictures stay in place? based on what you said.--Migospia 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The way to get those particular photos to stay is to convince the copyright holder(s) to release them under a free license, such as the GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution license (or to convince an admin that they're irreplaceable, but I don't think you'd have too much luck with that). —Chowbok ☠ 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How much time do I have? And I do no get why they are deleted when it is under the promotional license?--Migospia 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

..... I just got permission to use Suffrajett's press shot by the inmusicwetrust.com site owner--Migospia 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Avianca

I can not understand why Avianca's Boeing 787 image is nominated as Replaceable fair use while other kind of similar images not, like NWA's 787 Boeing, Continental's 787 Boeing, ANA'S Boeing 787...... All of them have the same source: Boeing Media!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ju98 5 (talk • contribs) 11:19, May 19, 2007 (UTC-6)

Hey!

Can you please answer my questions so I know what left I have to do?--Migospia 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A Certain Smile.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A Certain Smile.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:A Certain Smile.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A Certain Smile.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Future Fund Graph

I disagree with your assessment of the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AusGovUnfundedLiabilities.PNG.

My reasons are twofold:

  • - The information (mainly the breakdown) is confusing not to mention expanse in its entirety - the federal budget does not explicity outline the future liabilities that they expect to incur - one has to trawl through mulitiple departmental documents in order to discover the cost of public superannuation for the three aspects that are displayed.
  • -It specifically states "You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation." (From (http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/copyright.htm) It is a work of the Australian Government that is from the statement, and from the 'Copyright Act 1968' (See http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw%5Cmanagement.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200401428?OpenDocument) Thus it would be allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia.

I see no problem with retaining the current image - of course I do not know all the WP policies on images - but the second point, to me anyways, allows the reproduction of the image in question in relation to which it is implicated.

The problem with creating a new graph is that it would not display the breakdown in the projected liabilities - it would only portray the expected liabilites as a whole, which, in my mind, is not satisfactory.

I hope you can provide some useful correspondence :)Orbitalwow 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indents

Thanks for correcting the indents!--HeartThrobs 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Assist needed

I'm still getting notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale even though the below tag is placed on the image and discussion pages. Example: Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg. As you probably know, the Florida Memory Project template was discarded leaving many images either deleted or with notices.

Digital Image Information

This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.

Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida

Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.

Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

What can be done? Noles1984 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Playboy Magazine, October 1971.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy Magazine, October 1971.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Hopefully we can fill Wikipedia with free images instead, such as this image of a river in Egypt. ;-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another request

Greetings again. I was processing rfu images, and I'm stumped regarding Image:Jp01.jpg. Note that it's used in two different articles, for two different purposes, and the image talk page is heated. Could you process this one for me? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet another: could you comment here? How should I handle this? I'm open to criticism, if I could have dealt with this situation better. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)