User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Non-free content & "network" logos on repeater stations

Hello. I agree we have a quandary with the multiple use of non-free content. But, it looks like you are trying to enforce Wikipedia:Non-free content as a strict policy. It is a guideline - not a policy. It is impossible to enforce the TV logo multi-use on some limited networks such as many religious broadcasters and many shop-at-home type networks that use the different stations as mere repeaters of the identical signal if we have a separate article for each station. [a good argument for an exception to the guideline] ... But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a policy that is set in stone. Is the logical step to delete the logo image? Probably not. It seems the practical step is to merge all of the smaller articles into one (with appropriate redirects) larger, inclusive article. That would be the ideal way of both eliminating your only issue: multiple uses of the same image - without resorting to the deletion of a logo. Of course, doing that would be tedious and boring work - but that's how Wikipedia was built: slowly with many people pitching in and doing the tedious and boring work of fixing, overhauling and building - rather than deleting. Davodd 12:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If by going around to various network logos and tagging them with {{Fair use disputed}} I give off the impression that I am enforcing Wikipedia:Non-free content, I apologise. The document is not policy and there are many varied interpretations of how strict or how liberal it is regarding the use of non-free content on Wikipedia. I personally do not think that the logos should be used in any more cases than the original network; others, including you, may disagree. There is, to my knowledge, no consensus regarding their use; this is the environment that we are working in and the enviornment I am currently tagging such non-free images in. I would like to think that, if a discussion occurs, consensus would support my actions, but I do not know if that would be the case. You may consider raising a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, though I am not sure how active it would be; currently discussions there are rather stagnant. What I do know is necessary per any interpretation, whether strict or liberal, of Wikipedia:Non-free content, however, is a separate fair use rationale for each use of non-free content per WP:NFCC#10; for some logos this would entail 20 or more fair use rationales. I am not sure what your original question was, so I am not sure if I answered it appropriately; feel free to ask any further questions. --Iamunknown 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiGnosis

Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the update. --Iamunknown 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Versosartellmill.jpg

I did not find the image in question from a URL, it was emailed to me by request from a human resources manager at the pictured paper mill. How would I go about citing that? Thanks in advance.--Daveswagon 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if you just mention that it will be fine. I'll modify the image description page. --Iamunknown 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great news!

Thanks for the update, and your contributions.--PericlesofAthens 01:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3ABN and GLC network logos

I have added the necessary fair-use rationale text to Image:3abn_logo.jpg and Image:GodsLearningChannel.jpg. These images are logos for religious television networks, and are intended for use in the articles about the networks and affiliated stations. Please review the rationale provided for these images, and let me know if you need any more information. --AlexDW 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I appreciate the prose format of your fair use rationales, but I would suggest that you format it as a list; that is, to my knowledge, how most fair use rationales are formatted. Note also that, according to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (specifically criterion #10), a separate fair use rationale must be provided for each use of the non-free content. For a limited use of non-free content this is, of course, not burdensome; for the number of uses of Image:3abn logo.jpg, this is burdensome. I do not normally tag non-free images that maintain no non-free fair use rationale, but when I came across some of the network television logos, I realized that they should at least be tagged particularly because they had so many uses. My recommendation, which is not universally accepted and, as far as I currently know, is not condoned by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations, is to remove the logo from the affiliate stations and then provide a solid fair use rationale for the article regarding the main channel. In whichever case you pursue, the non-free logo will need a separate fair use rationale for each use. --Iamunknown 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the images from all of the articles for the affiliated stations. The logos are now only being used in the articles for their respective networks. Additionally, I have formatted the fair-use rationale as a list. I hope that this will be enough to justify the use of these images. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and giving me time to work out a solution. --AlexDW 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I like it! (And those are good rationales for logos, maybe I'll use them as examples now.  :-D) Thanks for being nice about it. I'll remove the {{non-free use disputed}} templates from those two images now. --Iamunknown 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that this little issue seems to be resolved. I've not been editing "full time" for several months now, so I was a little shocked about this. After reading WP:FUC and the TV stations project discussion archives, I've come to the conclusion that this is probably for the best. The remaining WP:TVS editors will probably come around eventually.

The text came as a suggestion from A Man In Black, who seems to have given up editing a while ago. It is quite similar to the text that was in {{Tvlogo}}; that template has since been redirected to something a bit different. Nevertheless, it will probably be a good template to use on the other logo pages, after the usage of said logos has been cut to the bare minimum. --AlexDW 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you back.  :-) --Iamunknown 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 30

Hehe, okay. ;) Yonatan ^talk 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

....and there I as trying to think, "Why La-moon-unknown??" until it suddenly clicked......cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! :-D Cheers, Iamunknown 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you randomly went into my talk page and reverted it? There is no policy on keeping everything on your talk page forever, so please don't do that again. Bluefield 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, why post the indefinite block on the front page? Such random things to do. Bluefield 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going through a list and, upon second examination, I really messed up. I apologise. --Iamunknown 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My wikibreak

Thanks for the welcome back. I had intended to be away longer, but things in the real world that I was expecting to blow up and become problamatic did not go so bad. Plus, this place is just so addicting! :-) --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Just wondering why the image, Image:WTNR Tower.jpg is tagged for deletion. It's got a copyright release in it. Thanks, Curran (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Curran, I originally tagged the image for deletion because the copyright notice at the bottom of the page http://www.broadcast.net/~sbe102/towers/wtnr.html said, "All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s)." If you have prior approval of Tom Bosscher, would you send that approval to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --Iamunknown 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, I don't have permission. If you look here, I added the tag on the picture that gave him credit. Would that fit his copyright stipulation? Thanks, Curran (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, they removed that tag. Sorry to bother you. Anyway, thanks for the help. Cheers, Curran (talk)

Nah, you didn't bother me. You could try contacting the photograph and asking him to release the photographs under the GFDL. That would be the ideal solution. --Iamunknown 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet

You wrote on Fred Bauder's talk page re: my request

"How do you expect that Fred shall help? --Iamunknown 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)"

Well, I guess if I knew what can be done in such a circumstance, I wouldn't have to ask him. But he is an arbitrator, and therefor knows better than I what the proper action is to be taken when an editor enters a case requesting feedback on a question like "is this a good proposal", and instead of commenting on the question posts a string of attacks, insults, and uncivil language against one of the other editors who did provide feedback. Perhaps as an arbitrator he could caution this individual against such behavior, and it would carry more weight than the words of a simple editor (one did try, but was rebuffed). Perhaps he could even get the insults stricken from the text of the case as irrelevant and inappropriate to the conversation. Maybe there's some other appropriate thing to do; I don't know. Maybe just advise me as to how to deal with such unprovoked bad behavior. Rosencomet 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a reply at Fred's page. I'll post a separate one here (I hadn't seen it until now; been avoiding my talk page and all :-P). Calton is a valuable contributor; he or she also can be unpleasant. I don't really know what to do with contributors like that. An RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Calton, was formed but the general consensus was, for better or worse, "We don't care". My advice is to not feed the flames. Talking with Calton on his or her talk page may help, but you gotta be in a calm mind to do it. Short of that, unless you wish pursue arbitration, I don't know what. I personally have had good interactions with Calton, but I know plenty of good-faith editors including yourself that haven't. Sorry for not being of any help.  :\ --Iamunknown 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CHROSE

hey lamunknown, could you fix that guys page. i accidently messed it up, -Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrose (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Sure thing. I posted a couple of comments on your talk page. Wanna continue discussion there? --Iamunknown 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was really worried

I also deleted [Image:HORSE.gif] --Chrose 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing saga with Forchtenberg images

Hi BuzzWoof here Thank you for the first sane and understandable piece of communication out of wiki! I now understand. Ok the way it is with the Forchtenberg images is that the mayor who donated the pictures basically does not give a owl's hoot who uses the images, where, whether they sell them or edit them. That is what I would consider "free" use but obviously this site has a different angle on things. Question: how must I tag the images to basically open them up for use anywhere. If you have time, which you probably don't, you can do this too (though I guess I must do it as I submitted them). If after all this it's not possible to "free" them up officially would I have to drive up there and take the damned pictures myself? (and you know what, with the instructions online I'd be none the wiser how to label them either!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuzzWoof (talk • contribs) 11:48, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

You could ask the mayor if (1) he or she is the copyright owner of the images (which is different than the "owner" of the images) and, if so, (2) if he or she would be willing to release the photographs under the GNU Free Documentation License. Alternatively, if you decide to take photographs of Forchtenberg, I would encourage you to license them under the GFDL. When uploading the photographs, you would select the item from the drop-down menu that says, "GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)".

This is unrelated, but you may sign your comments by typing four tildes after your final comments (~~~~); this will expand into your signature and the time when you commented. If you have any further questions about the images, I'll be glad to ask. --Iamunknown 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindnedd Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I know it was over a month ago, but thank you for telling me about image tagging.

--Andrew4793 ^t _c 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! I'm glad that I could help. I noticed the tags while monitoring Category:Articles that include images for deletion. Let me know if you need anything. I'll see if I can help. --Iamunknown 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian Freer Gallery Image Tags

Hi Iamunknown, I saw your comments about deleting the "Smithsonian" tag altogether, as it is misleading. I also found this couple of sentences on the "Smithsonian" tag's talk page to be interesting as well:

I have just read an e-mail from Mr. Ed Venzke, webmaster of Smithsonian Institution's GVP website. All photos made by SI employees are without restriction, as they are US Government employees. Authors and source just should be credited. Regardz - Darwinek 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Smithsonian"

In light of the images just needing an author and a source credited, what should be done for license tags in replacing "Smithsonian"?

Yours truly, --PericlesofAthens 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at Darwinek (talk · contribs) talk page about the claim; I have assumed that images hosted by the Smithsonian Institute are non-free, but I may be incorrect. About the remaining images, if the assertion that they are non-free is true, many may need to be deleted, as the subjects could be freely licensed by a willing Wikipedian visiting the Smithsonian Institute. The gallery of images from the Smithsonian institute currently at Song Dynasty and Freer Gallery of Art, in particular, will need to be orphaned and deleted. That was the original basis of my concern at the Song Dynasty FAC. --Iamunknown 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comment from User:Iamunknown

lulz, so many reverts. WP:RFPP? --Iamunknown 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I've seen persistent vandalism from multiple users on any individual page at a sufficient level that would warrant semi-protection. If I've missed anything, my apologies – Gurch 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian template

Hello. I have forwarded that mail to e-mail address you provided. Its subject is Fwd: RE: GVP Website. Hope it would help. Cheers. - Darwinek 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NFC criteria

Thanks so much for your contributions to the new version. Tony 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope they help. I edited it a bit more; I do think that we need to keep the historic order of the criteria, so I tried to fiddle with that; the result isn't too pleasing, but it works. --Iamunknown 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Glad you liked it! :-) I think you're the first person to have noticed... --YFB ¿ 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamás Kádár

Tamás, what are Image:Vitorlas.jpg, Image:Nyar2.jpg and Image:Osz.jpg pictures of? --Iamunknown 01:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

These are my paintings. But I deleted from my user:page, because somebody didn't like User:Tamás Kádár page..--Tamás Kádár 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They are beautiful.  :-) If they are unused, would you mind if they are deleted? --Iamunknown 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:OKIBEACH.jpg - Please dont delete

Hi there, please dont delete this image! It is one of the only decent pictures of an Okinawa beack on Wikipedia.

I have added the credit to Danny Choo who took this picture. Besides being a personal friend of mine he clearly states his creative commons licence on everyone of his pages at : http://www.dannychoo.com/slide/eng/japan/2984/photo/Okinawa+Photo/

Thanks.--Sean-Jin 08:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the source. You will notice when you follow the link "Creative Commons License" right below the image that Mr Choo has decided to license his images under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Generic license. Both non-commercial and 3.0-CC licenses are regarded as non-free content and must be labeled as such. I have changed the tag to {{non-free fair use in}} and, because the image is one which could be replaced by a free image, have tagged the image with {{replaceable fair use}}. --Iamunknown 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello IMU. Could you please give us your opinion re the usage of this picture? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've commented there and commented further at the IfD. The situation surrounding copyright is concerning. --Iamunknown 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IMU, is there a sample copyright letter somewhere that the website owner could send to the permissions AT Wikipedia address, that would justify free unrestricted use of this image? BEcause they wouldnt know what to write. thanks.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I'm sorry for the late reply. There is, I would recommend that you look at commons:Commons:Email templates. Explain to the website owner the terms of the GFDL (unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works, except that any reusers must license the photograph similarly) and ask him or her to fill the template out and (preferrably) replace the [LICENSE] field with the statement: "under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts." Hope that this helps. --Iamunknown 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg

What details are you looking for that are not already in the fair-use rationales? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Angellocsin.jpg

You're right, sorry. I overlooked it. Tend to do that when I'm going past so many images so quickly. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lightsaberfun.gif

I'm the site admin for the hosted site. I personally know the creator of that image (and have for over 20 years) and clarified the copyright status with him. What further verification do you need? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem now. The problem is that the original image was fair use, and this version is a derivative work. Given that, it appears that the wrong copyright tag is listed. I'm not entirely sure what the right one is, but since it doesn't really matter as it was used solely as a barnstar style thing, I'll just speedy it if there's no objection. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DallinHOaks.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bono honolulu.jpg

I noticed you tagged Image:Bono honolulu.jpg with a {{PUIdisputed}} tag. Check the talk page for the image. If you read through it all, it should be clear that although the image is copyrighted, all rights have been released (I contacted the author myself). I've swapped the appropriate tag back in. Let me know if there are any concerns or if I did anything in error. Chupper 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Banana cream pie AfD

Sorry! Damn Windows Update made me have to shutdown my computer, and then I got sidetracked. I will re-add them. Cheers. --TV-VCR watch 05:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Disney Channel Logo

What exactly needs adding to Image:Disney_Channel_2002.svg to be considered as to have a detailed fair use rationale? I've added a rationale, and have absolutely no idea what else to put on it. Unfortuantely, I only make the occasional edits to Wikipedia and therefore have no idea about detailed fair use rationales (and yes I have read the help pages on it - they made no sense). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orry Verducci (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Re: Kelly Martin's talk page

Thanks for your message. My edit was meant in good humor, as a response to this. I have no problem with Kelly's positions on these issues, and in fact largely agree with them, when it comes to "capitalised gibberish" and RfA thank you notes at least.--ragesoss 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Tfd

Please see my reply there. Thanks. –Pomte 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

I've just left a help message there. I know this pisses some people off but all I've done is tag images for problems in line with Wikipedia policy! An image must come from somewhere - and it should be sourced. Would have been good if the user that is now reverting all my edits had actually left a message for me first. Madmedea 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

Bizarre! It didn't warn me there was an edit conflict, and I'm sure I didn't delete the text. I'm sorry about that, if it was somehow my fault it was purely unintentional. Thanks for letting me know it happened, in any case. Komdori 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

re: RFPP

No worries, we said the same thing anyway :) Now if you'd advocated for protecting, things would be different ;) – Riana_ऋ 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Forchtenberg images set to be speed deleted

Hi, thanks for your notes. It strikes me I might as well take snapshots of this place myself and upload that. Yeah?

If you are nearby Forchtenberg or can go there over a weekend, that would be great! Please let me know when you upload them, I'd love to see them.  :) --Iamunknown 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

edit war?

I did post on the talk page, but the unregistered user did not respond. I also asked for protection last night. The unregistered user continues to vandalize the Queens College page. I reverted a few times, posted on the talk page, even asked for the page to be protected, but nothing. I don't know what to do next. The warning is unwarranted. Enigmaman 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

the vandalism doesn't stop. unregistered user at 208.120.89.146 and 208.120.88.167 continues to ignore everyone and keeps going. Enigmaman 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Enigmaman, I didn't mean to offend you by warning you, I just don't want the situation to escalate into an edit war, so I warned all parties involved. I understand your frustration and I am now watching the page (and just reverted some information). The editor needs to be warned and talked to, though, so that he or she knows that what he or she is doing is not appropriate. If the editor does not comply, I would suggest dispute resolution (specifically third opinion); of course, that requires getting the editor to the talk page first. --Iamunknown 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing after getting your warning. But unless that user's IP is banned, they'll keep doing it. It's a very persistent vandal. Anyway, can I get the warning thing removed from my talk page? It's mildly irritating. Enigmaman 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the uber-late reply; I replied at your talk page. --Iamunknown 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"how does a word "stand"?"

The expression is a shorting of "stands in for" in the same sense that Bob might stand in for Tom in a staff meeting. Thats how I use/read it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, it just sounds weird :S, anyways I seem to have forgotten to commit the revision even though I typed it into the edit summary, so I guess I'll just leave it as-is. --Iamunknown 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the sunflower. Regarding help, just keep commenting on images listed there, your comments are always helpful. And yes, I noticed you are not a fan of barnstars, see User:Iamunknown/Barnstar!. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have one of those anti-barnstar barnstars.  :P I certainly like compliments and like giving them (hence the sunflower :-)), but I prefer things to be informal. I must say, however, that I was totally taken aback when you gave me that barnstar, as it was the first one I have ever gotten; thank you. That I marked the page for deletion wasn't necessarily because I dislike barnstars, but was more because I got very stressed out throughout April and thought that I might be able to cut back from Wikipedia (obviously not, though, I'm still here).

Anyways, thank you for the barnstar, and I hope you like your sunflower :-) I'll keep it up at WP:PUI. --Iamunknown 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well..I guess I have an ego, so the sunflower still goes on my userpage. :) For now anyway. Btw, it might be practical to have a statement on your talk that you also respond here. Makes it easier. Also, to make life less stressful on wikipedia (yes, that was sarcasm for sure) have you ever thought of nominating yourself or be nominated for adminship?

Damn, while I was previewing this I got your message. Yes, I did! :) Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't know you would but I should have suspected it.  :-P I'll add a note to the top of my talk page about my talk page habits. About adminship, thought of it, been asked if I want a nom once, and turned it down. I'd like to help clear backlogs and such (as opposed to create them) but, mainly (besides residual fears of RfA), I have issues in real life that I am trying to manage and I fear that taking on adminship would make said attempts more difficult. So maybe later. In the meantime, I can make more backlogs if you would like!  ;) --Iamunknown 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA is not that bad (well...it is but hey), I passed it, so must not be that hard. :) But I understand, I also turned down the first time I was asked, only about 6 months after that I accepted. You simply should do what you want, making backlogs for admins to clean up works too. Garion96 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polska Flaga Berlin.jpg

Hi, can you please explain this edit ? Thanks. --Lysy^talk 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert Betacommand? --Iamunknown 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's not paying attention to what he's doing. He ignored the fair use rationale provided with the image and removed the tag explaining this. I'm surprised you reverted without understanding this. --Lysy^talk 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you reverted without understanding that a separate fair use rationale, separate from the image copyright tag, is required for each use...that basically explains why he tagged the image with {{no rationale}}. --Iamunknown 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please can you help me out and explain why a separate fair use rationale is required ? Possibly in a friendly manner. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very late reply at Lysy's talk page. --Iamunknown 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello. Thank you for removing the fair use images from the Letterkenny Retail Park article. I had requested several editors' help in removing the images, but you were too quick for them. : ) Thank you for deling with the issue so quickly. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-ThaiGov

You made some suggestions for replacing this template with "no copyright holder". Do you know of any bots that can help here? >Radiant< 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I'm sorry I somehow missed your note regarding Template:PD-ThaiGov on my talk page in May. I don't know of any bots, but it looks like you did the tedious replacements yourself; thank you. --Iamunknown 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chasing the dragon

THanks for that. For some reason that film production seems to have been abandioned - the film then needs to be removed from Snipe's filmography. I have deleted the article but agina much apprecaiation and respect for informing me. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:IONTelevision.png

Okay, I read WP:FURAT and revised the rationale; should be detailed enough for you. Unless your idea of a rationale for EACH USE means the same block of text three times for each article? I don't know. But anyway, I fixed it. Any more problems, please tell me. For now let's just cross our fingers and hope this works. -- M (^speak/_spoken) 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mattderojas, I'm sorry for the delayed reply, I've replied at Image talk:IONTelevision.png. --Iamunknown 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums (UK)

Did I ever get back to you about this? Is there something that currently needs doing? Jkelly 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, (2) I don't know, I am not privy to OTRS e-mails. The last statement left was something like, "It would need a fair use rationale" and, since we don't currently do fair use rationales for articles, I figured it should be left at that. --Iamunknown 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting back to you. We used to use HTML comment tags to include fair use rationales for text in articles. It's not obvious to me that this is actually helpful for editors or for reusers, and we seem to have stopped doing it. I suppose that, in theory, there should be some machine-readable way to do this, per the Board resolution. Jkelly 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:No rationale

Please note that {{no rationale}} is intended only for images that a) were uploaded after 4 May 2006, and b) have *no* rationale whatsoever. Neither of these were the case for this edit. Please exercise somewhat more care in the future.

User:Eastmain, who I guess is more patient than I, was kind enough to expand the rationale for Image:Yeongwol.jpg. However, as far as I can tell everything included in Eastmain's rationale was rather obvious from my much shorter explanation.

At any rate, thanks for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia free. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was misusing the template. --Iamunknown 14:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Laarn how to do wikipedia dates on biographies or stick to stubs! Just stop doing what you know very well is wrong [1] to gain effect, because it makes you appear very stupid. Giano 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

... actually I didn't know that it was "wrong", still don't think it is "wrong", but I am unwilling to edit war over it, and I'm unsure why you think I am trying "to gain effect" and are so keen to tell me I'm stupid, infantile or whatever insinuation you will come up with next. It is mentioned at WP:DATE#ISO_date_formats if your interested, but now that I read over that section again, it mentions that anonymous editors and editors who do not have their date preferences set will still see the ISO date format, as opposed to the formatted date. Whatever, Iamunknown 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The ISO date format that you introduced is actually standard where I live... but why on earth did you put it into a pre-existing article on a UK topic? This approaches a nuisance edit. It's "wrong" all right, on several levels. Please see the MOS, here: [2], where it says not to use it in ordinary prose at all (even apart from the UK standard business). Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for parsing that.  :-) I read that section, didn't fully parse it, and assumed it should be used! Is there a specific date style that should be used? Or does one do whatever? (Or should I go back and fully read WP:DATE?  :-() --Iamunknown 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For the second time,Image:Bono honolulu.jpg

I already left the following on your talk page the last time you tagged this image. If I'm doing something in error, please let me know. Otherwise, please stop tagging this image and read the information below. Chupper 12:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged Image:Bono honolulu.jpg with a {{PUIdisputed}} tag. Check the talk page for the image. If you read through it all, it should be clear that although the image is copyrighted, all rights have been released (I contacted the author myself). I've swapped the appropriate tag back in. Let me know if there are any concerns or if I did anything in error. Chupper 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry. Could you send your correspondence with the author to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --Iamunknown 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Chupper 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's tempting...

but try not to do this, Unknown. Just letting these fellows quietly stump back to their caves is good enough :) Cheers mate, – Riana ⁂ 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I shouldn't have, and when I saw that you'd replaced my comment, I felt a sinking feeling. I write my vandalism warnings on the fly (w/o templates), so sometimes they get inappropriate. I'll try harder next time to be nice. --Iamunknown 04:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK - when I'm doing RCP late at night I have to often try very hard to keep my temper in check ;) I understand. Take care, – Riana ⁂ 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

euro images

Oh the hypocrisy! Clearly this longstanding issue of why some copyrighted images were allowed with permission and why others weren't wouldn't have been an ongoing issue if you'd been watching the discussions all along.

However, you might want to wait for Jimbo to respond before running off to rid Wikipedia of the euro. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:16, May 22 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of long-standing images issues that need to be resolved, even at the Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face for an example). I'm not sure I would call it "hypocrisy", because it is my opinion that those who have created these templates and uploaded these images did so in good faith. I don't intend to rid Wikipedia of the euro, but restrictions placed upon other non-free content must also apply to it (which they currently do not).

As for Jimbo, best wishes to get a statement from him, lately he is rather silent (I have his talk page on my watchlist, so I see when he posts). --Iamunknown 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons has very different rules than we do, and by the by I wasn't quite referring to you when I said "oh the hypocrisy". Why not bring everyone who has a real stake in this issue out of the woodwork and deal with all of Category:Currency images and then move on to Category:Flag images? If one tenth of the people who edited regularly on half of the effected pages came out of the woodwork--now that would be fun. And lets face it--those countries could sue us any day. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:37, May 22 2007 (UTC)

The issue I am concerned with is not necessarily law suits (though it is always a concern); you are correct, I doubt a country would sue us for using pictures of their currency. I am concerned that we claim that this content is free when it is in fact not free; currently, all non-free images (which are images which provide neither commercial reuse nor derivative works nor both in their license), must be identified and treated as non-free content. If the policy changes, then our treatment of these images changes; if not, then not. --Iamunknown 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not identified and treated as non-free content, but identified and treated as all-rights reserved content, no? Because those euro images are tagged as copyrighted--it isn't a question of are they being handled procedurely properly. My issue of course is two-fold. I think that our behavoir here is totally incorrect, and I think that one of the reasons it isn't being addressed is that we're allowing many of these images to continue being used. If we kept the euro from being used on everything but the article (or two) which fair use allowed, people might pay attention. Instead, we have these images on talk pages even because people take photos of bank-notes and release the photo into the public domain, so the image is tagged as such (is sometimes even on commons that way) and no one ever realizes that it violates our policies. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:48, May 27 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is problematic (we agree on something! :-)). That should be addressed. --Iamunknown 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Bono_honolulu.jpg

The license terms on the image are correct. MECU≈talk 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are free terms. Attribution is okay with free and the "requested" to be contacted it merely a request, not a requirement of the license. MECU≈talk 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Database import in MediaWiki

Hi, I saw that you asked User:Interiot about import of database dumps in MediaWiki. You can use the program importDump.php in the maintenance directory of MediaWiki to do that. It is somewhat slow, but it works fine for something not bigger than enwikibooks. For very large database dumps it might be preferable to read the dump files by special handmade programs taking the exact information you need and nothing else. I have analyzed Wikipedia databases for some years and use both methods. Byrial 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Byrial! I'm sorry for the late reply. I've been fiddling with my installation, but it is difficult to get working on Windows. Specifically, when I try to access importDump.php, I get a 403 permissions error. I don't know how to fix that.  :-( Any thoughts? --Iamunknown 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot give advice regarding working in a MS Windows system as I don't do that. But the scripts in the maintenance directory should not be called from a webbrowser (403 sounds like an HTTP errorcode). Open a terminal window, go to the right directory and invoke the php program directly with the XML database dumpfile as input. In a Unix system you will typical type something like "php importDump.php < database-dump-file.xml" at the command prompt. I have no idea of the exact syntax in Windows. Byrial 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted

I'm still disturbed by the comment that you made at the MfD. To broady assert that "some users" (who?) would block users solely for disagreeing with them impugns the character of dozens of administrators whose only crime is to use IRC. That you would do so apparently on the basis of the actions of one administrator, who was sharply repudiated by administrators left and right, including the many of the very administrators who you've just impugned, is saddening. If there are administrators going around threating to block people for disagreement, they need to be hauled in front of arbcom, not alluded to obliquely in some deletion debate. Comments such as the one you make only further an already precarious divide between administrators and users (rather, people in both groups who consciously think in such terms) and that's not healthy for Wikipedia. If there are problem administrators who actually abuse the blocking tools then dispute resolution is called for; regardless, the climate on Wikipedia will improve only if all users are prepared to treat one another with respect. I hope you're willing to help. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment, I was typing in frustration and haste. It is unfortunately true that, of late, I have become distrustful of many users, not limited to administrators, and have felt marginalized; my comment reflected that, though it was not the appropriate forum. I shall strike it out and leave a note.

I am also frustrated that editors, you included, so readily refer everything and everyone to dispute resolution; I know that process is the correct process, and I know that process is what everyone should do in order; it, however, is so bureaucratic (think, the hoops one must jump through to validate a user RFC), so lengthy (month-long or longer ArbCom cases) and so hopeless (editors becoming exaserbated and leaving, others picking up sockpuppeting).

I have unfortunately engaged in meta discussion that is over my head considering what time I have available to commit to Wikipedia; I think that my frustration is largely due to that. I wish I could help in areas for which I simply do not have the time or the will available to commit. That I express such frustration on MfDs is inappropriate; I hope you, however, from my comments here and situations of pedantic mockery on RFA talk pages, will at least begin to understand where I am coming from. Thank you, Iamunknown 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm an utter unforgiving fool. I apologize. --Iamunknown 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

signature

Changing made the + link for new messages stuffed up, I just have to leave it out --Adam1213 Talk 10:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting vandalism to my user page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help! ^_^ --Iamunknown 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Question RE: Image:A1_Logo_Color_Web_150.png

In your revised fair use rationale, you state concerning the logo that "...its use in the article "America One" to visually identify the network in question...is assumed to be a fair use..." and that "Any other use on or off Wikipedia may constitute copyright or trademark infringement." I'd like to more fully understand the intent of the rationale. Specifically, do you mean to imply that the use of the network logo is limited solely to the article about the network? Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. --Iamunknown 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a Wikipedia policy to back up your implication? I cannot find one. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(A reply is forthcoming, hopefully tomorrow when I am more composed --Iamunknown 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

• No reply is forthcoming, I'm not interested in investing time in this anymore. --Iamunknown 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck

Copying the Google-cached version of a Wiki page does not violate copyright. All wikipedia articles are released until the GPL and as such may be copied at will. Wjhonson 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not licensed under the GPL, it is licensed under the GFDL. Read Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, your assertion is false. Do not remove the speedy deletion tag, let an administrator review the request. You may add {{hangon}} if you wish to contest the deletion. --Iamunknown 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. It's merely restoring the text that was deleted previously. Wjhonson 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, what you are doing constitutes infringement of copyright. --Iamunknown 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"This text may be copied and distributed verbatim". How is a copy infringing? The license states it may be copied.Wjhonson 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied at WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article you linked even has an example, which I've copied verbatim. If you still think there is something wrong with that example, from the page you linked, let me know. Otherwise I'm going to restore the deleted text. Wjhonson 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with that example, which I have explained at WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet it's in the article you linked. Are you proposing that that article is wrong and should be modified? Wjhonson 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No. --Iamunknown 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what? Hard to try to give direction when the very article you link says the opposite of what you claim. Wjhonson 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "modify" anything, Wjhonson, so I'm not sure what you are asking me. --Iamunknown 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Address in what specific way my disclaimer fails the license requirements. As can be seen, not all interpretations agree with your assertions. Wjhonson 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Charlie Keever.jpg

What in the world, are you doing placing a speedy delete tag on this image? It is a school picture, released by his family when he went missing. The source of the image is a San Diego newspaper site. The image has been been there for nearly 2 years now. He is deceased, not a living person anymore. Fighting for Justice 03:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? If the picture has been "released by his family", where is the evidence, and why is the image tagged with a non-free tag? --Iamunknown 03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright for the image. The evidence lies in the fact that the boy was MISSING!!!. You don't look for a missing child solely on his name. The family had to release an image, so the public knows what to look for. It happened 14 years ago, when the internet didn't exist. Sometimes I can't find evidence on things, I know happened, from two years ago. And you expect evidence from 14 years ago? Good God, get with the times. Fighting for Justice 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What evidence says that there is no copyright for the image? That the boy was missing is no evidence. Please do not remove the tag, an administrator will review the image. --Iamunknown 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is fair use. Fighting for Justice 04:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Unfortunately essential copyright information is missing and, as such, I am reinstating the speedy deletion template. --Iamunknown 04:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note on my page

Hey, thanks for the kind note on my talk page. It seems from that that you're at least unlikely to oppose? I'll probably try an RfA in the next week or so. Thanks also for the great work you do on image copyright issues. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to make promises, but I would likely support your request.  :-) Your nice, helpful, already do quite a few admin chores, and could use the tools! --Iamunknown 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: New Utopia

Thanks for the note. I have reverted the changes made by Gene poole and left a comment at Talk:New Utopia explaining my reasoning. In essence, I've argued that the consensus at AfD was to keep the article about the scam and also noted that multiple editors expressed that they would have recommended deleting an article about the micronation. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment of the consensus. Thanks for leaving a note (I left you one since I saw you were a major player in the AfD), Iamunknown 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My user talk page

I've already begun receiving vandalism on my talk page. Please lock my talk page. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I cannot protect pages. You may wish to request page protection at WP:RFPP. Regards, Iamunknown 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright dispute? Re: MC202 audio exampes

Hi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mc202example.ogg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Discobotter.ogg both were written, performed and recorded by myself. I am the copyright owner and I chose to have it PD for Wikipedia as there were no listening examples. If you doubt we can make music at all check out our myspace: [3] - another tune with a 202 on it or go to [4] - loads of noise with 202,303,404's and so on ;)) Hope this helps. Cheers, Sven.

--audioschotter.net 13:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sven, I'm sorry I didn't believe you at first, I admit I tend to be hasty in listing media I think have copyright problems. I'll check out those MySpace pages sometime. Cheers, Iamunknown 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I contacted them on MySpace for permission. That's probably a first in the history of OTRS permissions. -N 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, both those pages have an OTRS template now, so I'm satisfied. BTW, nice pic (a new addition?). --Iamunknown 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My uniform pic? Yeah, I've started dabbling uploading stuff to Commons. Thanks. -N 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunflower

Gee whizz, what pressure, and thanks for the flower. Four months seems nothing, but maybe she's a returning editor, then it's no prob. I think the smiley irritated everyone. Gold♥ 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people tend to get uppity when they see images in signatures - and when a million other things happen. BTW, if you want to short your signature further, you can change the code to Gold♥ ([[User:Gold heart|<span style="color: #0B0; font-family: Bradley Hand ITC; font-size: +2;">Gold♥</span>]]). It renders the same for me yet is a bit shorter. --Iamunknown 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi dish

I replied on my talk page. (Yes, I'm the photographer.) Thanks for checking up on copyright status! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Liuhe Pagoda image

Sure, Bob Brooks' email is <r>. One question, though, where is this permissions page that you're talking about? Can you provide a link? I'm not even sure where I'm supposed to put his email. Thanks for bringing this up.--PericlesofAthens 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied at talk page. --Iamunknown 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit revert

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page! Have a cookie. --TV-VCR watch 05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Newscasts

OK, it's not the world's greatest proposal, but it'll do. If you want to add some legal, technical mumbo-jumbo, go ahead. Don't think it will do much good, but it is worth a shot. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment required

Hi there, as a fellow contributor to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images I was wondering if you'd take the time to comment on the proposal I've made on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Proposal for an addition to the page introduction. Thanks. Madmedea 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Iamunknown 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Your recent edit to Category:Latin biographies (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

zOMG I are teh vandal! --Iamunknown 03:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hey, just a heads up: please don't blank pages when you tag them for speedy. It helps the administrator who's doing the deletion if they don't have to dig through the history. Cheers! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Iamunknown 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Holy shit man, I just realized you aren't an admin, and I thought you were one. Would you mind being nominated? -N 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 :-P Thanks for asking and for your enthusiasm! At this point, because of my real-life obligations, I don't feel I'm ready to take on additional obligations. I hope to be an admin some day, however, so that I can clean up backlogs instead of create them! I'll let you know when I decide to do that. Again, thank you, and thanks for your opinions regarding image copyrights (esp. the one I just saw at WP:PUI! :)). --Iamunknown 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok man... let me know when you get more active :) -N 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Obama photo

It was my understanding that those images on the official campaign website (and the campaign myspace page, etc) were released to be freely distributed to promote the candidate's image. Bbsrock 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Teh barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Man you're a great backlog contributor, you deserve this, but please create a userpageAndersmusician $ 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar! Thank you! I admit I don't collect them, but I leave them happily in my archives and look back at them when the going gets rough. I'm glad you could wade through my backlogs to clean them.  ;) Cheers, Iamunknown 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page! ... discospinster _talk 12:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Iamunknown 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

IFD

Thanks for the invite. It has gotten very busy at my job and we have had a lot of end of schoolyear/start of summer activities. We are leaving on vacation today so I probably won't be much help for the next couple of weeks. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cookies

Hello, Iamunknown, I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. Peace, Neranei 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Those look very delicious. I'll get hungry now! Thank you, Iamunknown 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No longer orphaned

Sorry, took me a minute. Regards, El_C 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gorgon and Perseus

Hi Iamunknown. I need your help. As we cooperated sometime back on image:Sartzetakhs.jpg I would like to ask your help evaluating the image of the Gorgon because user DreamGuy thinks it is such a bad picture it does not desrve to be in the Perseus and Gorgon articles. He is currently edit warring with me and despite another user (Wetman) supporting the picture and the picture being used in three other Wikipedias (France, Italy, Israel) he keeps deleting it from the two articles. You posted the Sartzetakis image license dispute to Commons and you solicited feedback. Can you please do the same for Image:The_Gorgon_at_Corfu_Museum.jpg and post them on the talk pages of the article as shown below so that we can persuade this DreamGuy user that not all people share his opinion? Please refer to Talk:Gorgon#Gorgon.27s_picture and Talk:Perseus#Gorgon.27s_picture for background info. This has been a real waste of time for me because this person is the most unreasonable I've encountered yet and I would appreciate your help. If you cannot help please let me know. Thanks. Dr.K. 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied at talk page. --Iamunknown 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Moonwatch page

I'm obviously not getting the right format for my images. This is for the Operation Moonwatch page. All of the images are from NASA sources and I thought I had labeled them as such. Sorry to be such a bad wiki-writer but I'm really quite puzzled as to how to fix them. Pls feel free to email me directly if that's simpler.

Hmm, could you enable your email in Special:Preferences? Thanks, Iamunknown 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Category for navy images

If you want to try converting them, I've created COMMONS:Category:United States Navy Officer Ranks. -N 23:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind

I struck out your comment on Image:Wilfred_Rhodes.jpg at PUI. All images published before 1909 are usable on Wikipedia, please see Template talk:PD-US. -N 21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Iamunknown 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my e-mail address is <redact e-mail>. Rhythmnation2004 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've redacted your e-mail so spambots don't get it, but its in the history and I'll e-mail you later tonight or tomorrow. --Iamunknown 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Antonio Geraci.jpg

The source is Speciale Sentenza "Strage Falcone". I have put this on the image page as well. - Mafia Expert 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Iamunknown 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nordin

nadav's argument that we could take a picture of Peter Nordin and the robots separately convinced me the image is replaceable. Thanks. -N 12:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, sorry about my rampage. I need to be less tired when I edit Wikipedia.  :( --Iamunknown 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok :) The important thing is I changed my mind to the correct way of thinking. By the way, he's named us in a mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20 Peter Nordin. Yay. -N 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my first foray into dispute resolution. Glorious day. (:-P) Thanks for the heads up. --Iamunknown 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could be fun. He actually included his admitted sockpuppet in the case. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rogerfgay. Just sit tight until a mediator takes the case :) -N 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help, and everything's been fine recently. I will of course let you know if I need further assistance. Enigmaman 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your code

Thanks Iamunknown, I'm using your code. Think I'm back. Cheers! Gold♥ 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Liuhe Pagoda image again

I have another one of Bob's emails, if you'd like that one as well. I tried emailing him again and he is not responding though.--PericlesofAthens 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)