User talk:Jkelly/Archive08

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

Heh

Why did you give me a template message? :-) Khoikhoi 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Ciao, Khoikhoi 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Malakas

Hi, JK, I just saw this. Good man.--Tekleni 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Jkelly is awarded the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his efforts to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Tekleni 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween flame war

On Samhain there was a hideous conflagration on the Halloween article, resulting in it being locked down for the duration. It's still on full protection, and should remain so for now. Before we succeeded in getting it locked I did a pare down, rewrite, and deletion of some Evangelical Christian POV that included insulting characterizations and links to websites full of hate speech about Gaelic culture, Irish history/religion, Wicca and Neopaganism ("The Celtics[sic] worshiped the Demon Saman[sic]" type stuff. The user (Caloon2000) who is pushing the POV agenda has been warned by admins, but is still trying to drum up support by posting on Requests for Comment/Religious. He is also attacking me verbally (though someone seems to have removed his assertion on the Halloween talk page that feminists and Wiccans should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, as I can't find it now), and by responding to my warnings to him about his violations of NPOV and 3RR with retaliatory fake charges of vandalism (yup, he put warning templates on my page). Hopefully, the situation is in hand now, as the guy has been reported. However, I am concerned as he's making false reports. As you are an admin who's familiar with some of this territory, I wanted to mention this to you, especially in case it does not resolve easily. Thanks. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image of Tourette and Bourneville

Hi Jkelly,

SandyGeorgia recommends you for asking image-usage questions. Could you have a look at this?. I've tried asking on Commons here but haven't got any replies. I don't know how patient I need to be on Commons but it does look like my question is growing stale. One further question to add to those already there is: does the uploader have to be based in the US to take advantage of the US PD-Art laws? Thanks for your time. Colin°Talk 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply. The Tourette image says "Cliché E. Pirou". The first word is French for printing plate. The name is I believe Eugène Pirou (1841–1909). I'm not sure whether this is saying E. Pirou is the artist or just the printer/photographer. The latter seems more likely given his profession.

The Bourneville image is anonymous (though the artist is pretty sure to have died > 70 years ago), but they have another less good picture here, which is drawn by Henri Meyer (and photographed by someone called Marius). I am pretty certain this is the same Henri Meyer mentioned here as (1844–99).

I agree that BUIM's copyright claims are almost certainly concerned with their scans, which as you say aren't valid in the US and are reckoned by that court of being invalid in the UK also. If I were to upload, are there valid reasons why they would be deleted, or are we safe unless someone comes knocking? Colin°Talk 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Save the page, please!

Dear JKelly,

I'm writing with reference to the changes you made last night to the page of Transtlantic Partners Against AIDS (TPAA). First of all, I would like to thank you for launching this page in the very beginning. I do external affairs for TPAA in Russia, Ukraine and neighboring countries, and improving the Wiki page was one of the humble efforts to get free-of-charge visibility for a non-profit that helps to save lives in those countries. I would be most grateful if you could let me know the reasons, which you as administrator might had in mind, changing the page back to the old version. I'm registered as Umha87, my name is Valerie and I'm now writing from the Moscow city, which is already slightly veiled with snow. Kind regards and looking forward to receiving your reply Valerie—Preceding unsigned comment added by Umha87 (talk • contribs)

recent edits to Cuisine of Kentucky

Hi i noticed that you objected to past content of this article as did I. I have made some bold edits today after the article has been sitting there for over a month with no work done to it since the second vote to not delete the article. I decided to cool off and not do anything for awhile but now I have started. I am hoping you could check out what I have done in case others cry blanking or vandalism. It seems like the best thing is to add good material quickly before people blithly revert it. If I'm way off base let me know too.-Crunchy Numbers 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image help requested

Hi, I'm on a semi-wiki-break, as I have a lot of study to catch up with, but I noticed recently that the image Image:Musical+notes.png in one of my user boxes at User:Musical Linguist/About me is broken. It used to work perfectly, but then the image was deleted from English Wikipedia, and uploaded to Commons instead. My understanding was that if an image exists at Commons, then you just link to it the normal way, as if you're linking to an image on Wikipedia, but it still appears as a broken link on my "About Me" page. The funny thing is that it appears properly in this message on your talk page, so perhaps the problem is that it's inside a box on my page. If you have any ideas on how to fix it, I'd appreciate it. If not, don't waste any time on it. I'll figure out something when I've finished reading all about -isms and -ologies. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore that messge. I've figured it out! Hope all is well with you. AnnH ♫ 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Feb14 boxer roses.jpg

Ryan posted this on my talk page and the image page in response to your copyright status request:

Note - Barbara Boxer herself posted that image to DailyKos: "P.S. I've attached a couple photos from this afternoon. This is what 4,500 roses looks like!" Does that satisfy the 'fair use' requirement (the author posted the image to a public site as a 'gift' to her supporters)? Just tryin' to help. Worse comes to worse, we can contact Boxer's office. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I found this image on boxer's .gov website (making it PD?). Maybe use that one instead? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

wanted to bring it to your attention. thx. Kevin Baastalk 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Betty Blythe

the Image:Betty Blythe.jpg is Wikimedia Commons as Image:Betty Blythe.jpg.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedar63 (talk • contribs)

Urgent Request For Assistance

Sorry, JKelly, but you made the mistake of welcoming me, so now you're the first one I come to for help...

This brings some concern to me. I know the Secret Service and/or FBI take a dim view of this sort of thing. To protect Wikipedia from any hypothetical liability, I'm wondering if we should report this to them. We may not have the tools to identify this yoyo, but they might.

Your thoughts?

Septegram 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard stories of these government agencies getting worked up over what was obviously a joke, so I wasn't sure whether this required that we take steps beyond what's already been done in order to protect ourselves.
If you don't think it's an issue, I'll chill.
Thanks for the input.
Septegram 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Publicity photos

I'm speaking from experience here. When I worked for newspapers all publicity photos that you got in press kits or wherever (and I used to file them both online and off, so I saw quite a few) were headshots of the type described. Whenever I've looked for photos of people for articles, that's the sort of photo I've looked for.

But enough ... you have a point. Dana Delaney has an archive of photos on her site that I thought were all old press-kit photos, but are not. The real old press-kit photos are under "press" and I took one to replace what is not clearly labeled as such on her site (though it sure looks like one) that we're using now.

Why do we have that page, anyway, if we're no longer letting people use those images on the grounds that they're theoretically replaceable? Daniel Case 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

Thought you'd want to know, it appears someone is trying to look confusingly like you: Jkelley (talk · contribs). -999 (Talk) 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use image

Hi Jkelly, I didn't upload Image:MountLogan.jpg, I just changed its colours. It was User:E Pluribus Anthony. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alizee image

I replied here. Thanks. --soumসৌমোyasch 03:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube

It's flatly incorrect to state that YouTube is a "copyright infringing source"--many, many YouTube links are in the public domain/self-published original works. YT may contain copyright infringing sources; that doesn't mean it is or is only or is always a copyright infringing source. The problem of copyvios in YT, such as music vids, is covered under WP:C. To conflate all of YT with the copyvios is incorrect, and does nothing to help editors use YT for the benefit of Wikipedia. Cindery 23:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Realismadder

Hi Jkelly

I noticed you've handled some images uploaded by this user before. Could I ask you to check his recent uploads? It looks like WWII images, but I am not sure about Slovak or Hungarian copyright laws. However, the GFDL tag needs to be replaced by something else. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Albanian placenames

If I must not add albanian name for citys outside of Albania why are forin names at albanian citys like Korçë and Gjirokastër? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoguShqiptar700 (talk • contribs)

About the Stephen Harper Edit

There was a picture of an uncircumsized penis in place of his real picture. As I am not sure how to revert changes, and I did not have a non-copyrighted picture immediately available, I simply removed the offending image.

I apologize if this was not the correct course of action.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nideveta (talk • contribs)

Regarding article on Stephane Dion

Someone has erased the information contained in the article for Stephane Dion...can you please revert it?

Thanks!

Nideveta 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Feedback request

I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University article a lot lately and would like to request your feedback about how to improve it further. Thank you! WikiprojectOWU 08:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenian images Copyright questions

Is this "Khoikhoi is this "Gevork Nazaryan armenianhighland.com copyright © 1997-2006" ok for Copyright pictures? Ararat arev 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright images

Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Free image resources Can you tell me how to do this? Ararat arev 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Or were you also telling me a faster way? Ararat arev 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jkelly Im still confused how do I do this putting Image:Armenian-Mitanni.jpg somewhere right? Ararat arev 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I get what you're saying. But some of them has that Stop sign with the hand and some dont what does that mean? Ararat arev 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we rename the image file

that crest that you're saying the other you're saying is this only its drawn with the top part of the sun wings and lions and eagles of this image you see? The Copyright of Gevork Nazaryan's armenianhighland.com is not valid?? Also Im wondering how do we rename the image files?? Ararat arev 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Urartu2.jpg this one is also an artifact from Urartu times. And this one Image:Haldi.jpg

I forgot to say yes, they are drawn also from the artifacts. Sorry for taking up space on your site. Ararat arev 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Same with all those other ones I'll let you know of them some are the same drawn from Historic Armenian sites like the fortress picture Ararat arev 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

JKelly I got the image information now

Of the Mitanni seal sun wings and lion eagles. Here it is:

It is from Martiros S. Kavoukjian's "The Genesis of Armenian People," Montreal, 1982. It is the royal seal (winged eight-pointed sun disk flanked by two lions and two eagles) of the King of Mitanni Sauššatar (c. 1440-1410BC) (p. 97). Originally from G. Contenau's "La Civilisation des Hittites et des Hurrites du Mitanni," Paris. p. 62. Ararat arev 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is drawing of that symbol which is a cylinder impression of Mitanni King. It has been drawn and outlined and used in G. Contenau's book which is a 19th century book so no problem there in terms of copyright. Below you see the original royal seal as the winged sun disk with King Saussatar holding two lions.

Image:Mitanniseal.jpg

KING SAUŠŠATAR [c. 1440-1410 BC] WITH THE SACRED ENCIRCLED 8-SPOKE

WINGED SUN DISK ON THE OFFICIAL MIT[R]ANNI ROYAL CYLINDER SEAL.

THE SUPREME MITANNIAN DEITY OF LIGHT, REASON, TRUTH AND ULTIMATELY REDEMPTION WAS MITHRAS THE HEALER AND SAVIOR. THE SOLAR EAGLE/PHOENIX [PHOENICIA COMES FROM PHOENIX AND SYRIA'S ANCIENT MITANNI NAME IS HUR[R]IA [HUR LIT. FIRE] SYRIA CONNOTES SIRIUS...CARRIED OVER FROM ARMENIAN HIGHLAND-MITANNI-DILMUN-ETIN-EDEN TO EGYPT BY THE NETJERU OR THE ELDER GODS OF ZEP [SEP] TEPI/FIRST TIME/GOLDEN AGE...] AND LION WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE COAT OF ARMS OF RA Ararat arev 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Viken's permission to use photo

Here is the photo in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Armenia You see the dance picture "Image:Armenian-Dance.jpg"

Maral's permission to use this photo

Here is the photo in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Armenia You see the dance picture "Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg" its from http://www.akhtamar.org I had thought that previous photo was from Viken's site sayatnova.com but it was actually from akhtamar.org. So I asked Maral she approved via email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ararat arev (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Jkelly are you there ? Ararat arev 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I emailed to permissions of her approval. What about the other artist pictures from Gevork he approved also so can they stay since some I noticed you allowed which is also from Gevork. So some from him like the lion drawing or Haldi on the lion you dont seem to approve? Ararat arev 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag? GDFL?

How do I do this?

"We will not host copyrighted images used by permission, per {{copyrighted}}, unless the copyright owner released them under the GFDL." Ararat arev 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok thank you. This guy dab is making it sound like its totally not approved? Im not uploading any more images but I need my Armenian dance photos to remain its important. Those are the ones I emailed permissions and got approval from. What else is this GDFL ? Ararat arev 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab didnt put anything under some of the other photos. But this one is the most important and I emailed the approval to permissions@wikipedia.org and he puts some warning on it?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg I need this one for our Culture page. Let's make sure we dont remove this. Thank you. Ararat arev 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please remove that Copyright warning on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg ? Thank you. Ararat arev 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me find it. And like I said its important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg can you remove the warning. Thank you. Ararat arev 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Emailed to permissions again

Ok here I emailed to permissions. Thank you. Ararat arev 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I emailed to "permissions@wikipedia.org" Is something maybe wrong with your emails? Ararat arev 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the email message:

I wrote to Maral:

I need permission to use the dance photo for the Wikipedia. Can I use the photos ? I only need one or two. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg and this one also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance.jpg and and here is the Culture of Armenia section which I added our Dance section and here is the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Armenia . Merci. Thank you.

My name on Wikipedia is Ararat_arev here is the link to my page there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ararat_arev

Patrick Dersarkissian

She wrote:

That's fine with me. I'll forward this along to the other members. Great site by the way!

Maral K. http://www.akhtamar.org Ararat arev 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you get the email though? And your email is the permissions@wikipedia.org ? Ararat arev 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I emailed you permissions@wikipedia.org I had a typo and I emailed you again did you get them? Here is the pictures I need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance.jpg Ararat arev 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok thank you make sure you check the next email I had a typo inthe first email Ararat arev 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Any response yet by Maral akhtamar.org ?

Did you hear from them yet? They respond late but they will respond. I emailed them also letting them know of the GDFL and to email permissions@wikipedia.org for approval. Please be patient dont remove the Armenian dance photos ok? Can you also let Dbachmann know since I cant message him he has blocked his page. Ararat arev 20:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann seems rather inpatient and I get this feeling he's tring to remove the photos and accuse me of violating the rules. Ararat arev 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Any response yet by Maral from akhtamar.org ? I havent heard from you for a while. Ararat arev 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not heard from you for almost a week

I emailed you almost a week ago. I told you Maral and Lara emailed me back telling they emailed permissions@wikipedia.org for approval for the Armenian dance photos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance4.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian-Dance.jpg

Please message me back and update me on your tag and approval. Thank you. Ararat arev 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the NoRightsReserved option in those photos. Hopefully this is right? Thank you. Ararat arev 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.Ararat arev 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit War at Andrew D. Chumbley

Hi Jkelly: There's been a lot of contention at Andrew D. Chumbley for some weeks now; it's actually had a really good effect and the article is much richer and better referenced than before. However I think now it's getting to the point where tempers are fraying quite badly and it's becoming an out-and-out edit war. There have been a couple of requests for mediation, and some of them seem (from recent comments) to think I'm a mediator, simply because I've been doing a bit of fence-sitting. I wonder if you could have a brief look in?

The dispute is between reineke and Lulubyrd on one side (team A) and an anonymous editor on the other side (team B) who keeps logging in from different IPs. The dispute revolves around team A wanting to state that Chumbley was well-respected and influential in the occult community and team B wanting to denigrate Chumbley at every opportunity. The recent edits are fairly representative of what's been going on. If you have the time to look in and will, I'm sure it would be much appreciated. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Who are you?

How come you responded to a message which was not even addressed to you?

Psdubow

Unreliable e-mail

Thanks for your message. Just for the record, I sent you an e-mail on 24 November (according to my time zone); you replied on 29, and I sent a brief reply to that, also on 29. There was nothing very important in my reply. Glad to see that you're back. I really should be on wikibreak, to concentrate on my ologies and isms. I'll definitely be cutting down before the middle of January. Once I get past this ghastly, boring sociology stuff that I have to learn, I'll be fine. Thanks for your help on the images-in-userspace issue. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey J

ROFLed with that template in Saloniki. :-) You had prepared it earlier or did you seriously sit down and fix it in just 7 minutes? NikoSilver 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I always thought than en:images should merge with commons (except those with incompatible licencing and those with the same name -if there are any). NikoSilver 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My worst edit ever

See here. Have you ever blocked an image? Obviously reading too much ethnography is affecting my brain! AnnH ♫ 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One person's opinion is another person's...=

It wasn't an opinion; rather, it was a fact. ChrisVehemence 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sj3.jpg

That's much better. Thanks for the quick response. Jkelly 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. - King Ivan 07:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why you have deleted the actual text to the Charge of the Goddess that I put up on its page.

It is the real text, but it is public domain, and it is just like quoting a bible verse: it is not the same when paraphrased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.28.4 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Megadeth FAC image info

Hi, thanks for your info regarding images on the Megadeth Featured article candidate page. I understand now that the images from a "fan site" do not have verifiable copyright info. Just so I understand correctly to post a pic(from a reputabale source of course), aside from fair use rationale, link to source, and licensing tags, the image pages also need copyright status? Such as: "© 2006 Megadeth.com"

The problem with the current lead picture vs Image:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg is that the band members are different now, the pic does not accurately represent the band.

If I were to use lineup pictures from the official Megadeth site here: Megadeth.com Line up pics with promo tags, fair use rationale, link to images and "© 2006 Megadeth.com", whould that be enough? Would I need to get permission from the webmaster (he is cool and easy to get ahold of). There are more than enough promotional lineup pics there - even one I got from the fansite. And all of those pics are truly "promotional photos".

The next step would be to scan back album cover pics (which I can also do) and include photographers names, copyright years, ect. But then the sources would probably not be available to link online, unless I posted the scans on Photobucket.com or somthing.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up, and let me know which method you think is best. With so many lineups, over so many years, I really do believe that lineup representation in pictures adds to the encyclopedic content of the page. Skeletor2112 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess

If you have a chance (no hurry), can you check in on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess? Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks, again ! Sandy (Talk) 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Regarding abt copyvio image

I would like to highlight to you i really do not appreicate the tone u are giving me about last warning whatsoever. I think this whole image thingy is a bogus. If the images uploaded are not with copyright tags, then why are they released in the public domain. If that's the case, i will feeel you should remove all the ANTM Cycles Promo pics including the cast pics, cos they are copyright infringement against UPN and CWTV. which they have the rights to the images... then why shouldn't you remove them or tag them with unsourced tags... I feel that my contributions is to make the pages look aesthectically and informative to fellow users - i wasnt in any case bending the rules whatsoever, and u were very rude to me....

If you have a problem, then why dont u help me get the copyright tags and incitations then? Wikipedia is supposed to be a source where averyone shd feel free to contribute as much tgrue knowledge and i feel that u oblieraite vertain users is kinda unfair. If u think my images are not right, then all the images includng Tyra at Cannes pic shd be banned becos the pic can be found online.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stealthusa (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Apollolancer

I'm not sure. It's confusing. But - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomtheman5 - that link might help. I think Stealthusa got angry, enlisted the help of Apollolancer (who I guess, in turn, enlisted the help of Tomtheman5). Now, Apollolancer is trying to help Stealthusa find the correct licensing info for these pictures. BUT neither of them really understands the issue, and both are taking the whole thing too personally. Elcda0 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For your information, i do not know who is stealthusa or how he/she enlist my help whatosever, I am a littel petrified that you are slandering me in public and using my name as an accusation which is not true, I hope Elcda0 would retract his statement, this is not s fair statement to imply anything. I am also shocked and bewildered by the hypocrisy this website has gone through because absolutely nothing has been done to rectify its term, there are so many images on Wikipedia that could be copyright infringement yet they are still online - then how would explain other website that are using the images as well? Are you gonna accuse them of copyright infringement?! Apollolancer 10:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)apollolancer

ANTM Images

Hi there! I noticed that you reverted my edits to Image:Topmodel1.jpg, which means I did something wrong. Unfortunately since the WB has merged with the CW, the image is no longer available on the internet. I do believe it's fair use since it's a very small resolution, and since it really is not replaceable. I had considered trying to get a screenshot instead of these promo shots, but my reasoning is that both of these would be considered unfree images, so why not go with the better one. I went ahead and added the original website from which that image was pulled to the image source information. Could you do me a favor and check it out and make sure that I've done it correctly, so that I can fix the rest of the cycles? If not, tell me what I can do to fix it. Thanks! tiZom(2¢) 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the two comments above me. Looks like this is a bigger problem that I thought! I'll still need your help though :o) Thanks! tiZom(2¢) 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear JKelly—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers, and to keep the issue simple.

Your support would be particularly important given your role in WP. Tony 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. KhoiKhoi referred me to you about questions I have regarding uploading images. I think I understand "fair use" (pretty much whatever you can grab on the web), but I don't really understand "free". For example, if an image doesn't explicitly say that it's copyrighted on the web and is it free? What about "semi-copyright"? I was specifically asking KhoiKhoi about images that I like at Flickr.com. I was think of putting one on my user page. Is that allowed? Thanks in advance, NinaEliza 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind - I found out that commons has an agreement with Flickr. Carry on:).NinaEliza 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, i was told you're very knowledgeable when it comes to images. If you have a few spare minutes could you please check the images at Slayer and see if they fit FA criteria. If it's any help, the fansite has a e-mail address that i could contact them with any maybe get permission to use them?. Almost all the images are from the site, www.slayersaves.com. Thankyou for your time. M3tal H3ad 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. With Image:SlayerBand2006.jpg wouldn't it be good to show a picture of the bands current line-up? It's close up and we can easily see the members. The Flickr images don't really show much, so could the copyright license be changed to make it allowed or something? I also have no idea what commons is :$ Thanks again! :) M3tal H3ad 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lara or Maral emailed you on permissions of photos

Ok Lara emailed from akhtamar.org to you did you get her email? Also is this the tag I need to put? NoRightsReserved  ?? Can you atleast put a valid tag now since it looks like a warning. Ararat arev 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are you? I want to know if you got their email please dont remove the files witout checking their email approval to you. Thank you. Ararat arev 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jude Law

Have a look and see if this meets with your approval. I believe everything Frise removed is now properly sourced. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Craig and Campbell

I don't understand. It's a promotional picture and I detailed where I got it from: Comingsoon/Superherohype, a popular and reliable site. Wiki-newbie 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it's a promo piece from the Production Company, EON, Sony or MGM. Wiki-newbie 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So what can I do exactly then considering I've seen this image a few times? Link from other sites too? Wiki-newbie 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the fact it's avaliable on IMDb and IGN, as linked now, also prove it to be a promotional piece? Wiki-newbie 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hardly care anymore, just get rid of it. No one minded before. Wiki-newbie 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you then. Wiki-newbie 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell one is Michael G. Wilson. I'm just glad I'm not potentially breaking the law. So are all Flickr pictures fair use then? Wiki-newbie 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's Wilson. Never saw Campbell with a beard. Feel free to crop it then. Wiki-newbie 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To Craig's right. Says so on the picture. Wiki-newbie 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi! May I request your opinion on this? Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Salem witch trials

Lol, sorry about that. I forgot to go and protect the page. Okay, page protected now.

By the way, I'm an admin too. =)

Nishkid64 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gerina_dunwich.gif

The image of Gerina Dunwich which you placed a copyright question on, it seems ive got permission from the author Gerina herself, does this now make it legal for use on Wikpedia? I have posted information on the copyright question page, and the image page itself. Brenton.eccles 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper image

Hi, can I refer this message left for me to you? You appear to be much more familiar with the situation than I. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo 07:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Thanks. I tried to read up on the dispute, but it was quite complex and the political issue just adds to the mess. My knowledge of the image copyright procedures is admittedly my weakest area on Wikipedia. That's why I was trying not to get involved and had hoped that you could shed some light on the issue. -- Gogo Dodo 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood link Arbitration

I'd like to respond to your statement on the Starwood RFAR briefly. Perhaps it wasn't clear to you that attempts to change these links at the local level of each article have been met with fierce and consistent resistance. This has included reverting up to the edge of the 3RR level and harassment on user pages. When edits include removal of the Starwood/ACE links, they have often been reverted with edit summaries claiming to revert "vandalism". Below are some examples:

Note user also reverted request for citations on same article, removing request for cites so now article is unsourced except for, yup, links to the Starwood website.

If you believe these links should be taken care of "at the local level", I would greatly appreciate it if you could express this in the Starwood Festival mediation as well as on the RFAR. The whole reason the mediation began is because local editors removed the links and edit warring and harassment ensued. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like your opinion on Rosencomet's conflict of interest in this, since you seem to have been appraising yourself of the situation from afar. As an admin, what is the proper method of applying WP:COI in such cases? In the aforementioned mediation, he has basically stated that WP:COI doesn't apply to him when flat out asked about it by the mediator and others involved. He has since quit participating in mediation. What other recourse is there? - WeniWidiWiki 18:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting those speedy-tagged articles I put up on the noticeboard. StoptheDatabaseState 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Reconstructionism Sources?

If you have a chance I'd really appreciate you dropping by the Celtic Reconstructionism article and Talk:Celtic Reconstructionism page. User:Frater Xyzzy is questioning the verifiability and usability of one of the sources used in the article. I think he's wrong but I'd like a more experienced Wikipedian to look at it and give an opinion. I am, of course, not asking for you to come in on any side. I'm just asking you to give your opinion on the source validity. I'd rather the sourcing be within Wikipedia standards than flakey. Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's both constructive and helpful toward improving the article. "Ettiquette advice" indeed. (snerk) I'll try to apply your points to the article. Thanks again. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Images at Simpsons

Maybe you're interested in checking the images on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons. Best, Sandy (Talk) 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa link

Thanks for the appreciation. I think the link which I provided is one of the best Online Ottawa photo galleries. If you think it is not, it will be totally fine with me to replace that with the better one but I think the judgment should be made just based on the quality and it is not important that it is personal website or governmental or related to specific organization. Which one is best, that one should apear at the page, Best Regards, Odysseyontario (Talk), 5:54pm, Dec. 19, 06

tarot card images?

Can I get your opinion on some copyright issues about images, uploaded by User:Don Leon? An argument is being made that because P. Harris drew the cards in 1921, copyright does not apply, yet, US Games has (possibly) re-established copyright, as the inheritors of the work.--Vidkun 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

US Games asserts copyright over their particular colouring of the cards. In order for us to publish the Rider-Waite deck on Wikipedia, the cards must be recoloured. Bastique actually began a project of doing this for the major arcana. You can find them at commons:Category:Tarot cards. You should ask her if she ever got any farther than the Hermit. A scan of cards with US Games' colouring needs to be deleted if it has been uploaded here, but luckily it is possible to make unquestionably free versions for our use. Jkelly 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears it up for me. Was chatting with mutual friends last night.--Vidkun 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about pre-1923 PD images

I have a question about images taken before 1923 and thus should be public domain. I am wanting to purchase some digital copies of some photos located here for an article I may try to get featured. Before I start putting down money to get these higher resolution copies, I wanted to make sure that they would be permitted on en-wiki. There are many tiny thumbnails on that website but I am only interested in the ones that may PD unless there is some way I could use the newer ones also. Thanks in advance for any help.--NMajdan•talk 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:KaDee Strickland in Brentwood Magazine April 2005.jpg

Thanks for notifying me; I don't log onto the Commons as frequently as I do on Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

image movement?

While I really appreciate your updating my userpage with the image that was moved to the commons, you accidentally changed the wrong information. Thanks, though.

A question if I may, what is the preferred action for uploading cc-by images? I uploaded these to en-wiki, but should I have uploaded them to Commons instead? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jonathan ryan

This guy continues to upload copywritten images. I saw that you warned him, and I would like to assume good faith, but perhaps a temporary block is needed here to let him know what a bad idea it is to upload copywritten images. Just looking out for the better of the encyclopedia here. Stubbleboy 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Free use tag

Dbachmann says I cant use FreeUse Tag on some of my photos Image:Erebuni1.jpg there 2-6 of Erebuni?.jpg. Ararat arev 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Testing?

No, not testing. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use works. Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use doesnt exist. ---J.S (T/C) 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I fixed it before you reverted me. ---J.S (T/C) 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in NIN article

Hello JKelly. I was referred to you by Sandy for some help on getting the images on Nine Inch Nails up to FAC standards. Most of them have tentative Fair Use rationale, mainly because I don't know what the hell I'm doing when it comes to WP:FU. All but (I think) the band's logo are sourced from the official website. I have contacted that site's webmaster in the past; is there anything in particular I could obtain from him in the way of specific permission that would clear up uncertainty surrounding image reproduction here? BotleySmith 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the in-depth (and fast!) response. I don't think that Flickr has any easily-resolvable images of NIN in 2006 that aren't taken by a handheld camera in a moshpit. You're right about the rest, however - I'll remove the "promotional use" rationale and keep looking for a better image. BotleySmith 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again - I've just sent a few emails. BotleySmith 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
An update - NIN's webmaster got back to me and had this to say on the topic of promotional use license for Image:Ninmarch06.jpg and all other images found on the NIN.com website:

Yeah, that is a promotional image distributed to press and media outlets so they can reprint it to promote the band. It's technically owned by Interscope, but its purpose is for exactly the type of thing you're using it for on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how the justification works or if there's some official way we can authorize it, but if there is I think everyone on this end would be more than happy to do it. I was actually going to add a bunch of photos I've taken of the band to the Wikipedia commons (since I noticed they were having this same problem on the Trent Reznor page), but to do that you have to give the photos a creative commons license that allows them to be used for commercial purposes, and I can't do that. But if there's a way to justify photos as being promotional, I think you can safely do that for any of the photos that have been posted on nin.com. Technically, those have all been put out there to promote the band, and I know as a matter of principle Trent would have no problem with them being used on a site like Wikipedia.

Presumably he's bound NOT to release official photos to the public domain, but I think this reasonably justifies the current Fair Use rationale for that particular image. BotleySmith 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Guess who was removing the image from the other article (Northern Epirus). It was me; how exactly is it a retaliation?!? I am removing it as a copyvio and coming from an unreliable source ("Macedonians" a majority in a municipality - according to the census they number about 4,000). That edit summary demonstrates my neutrality as I removed a Greek symbol from a Greek article for the same reason. Please revert yourself. //Dirak 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't use rollback when reverting me [1]. The guidelines say it is vor reverting mass vandalism. //Dirak 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert. However, know that "Makedonsko Sonce", maknews.com and the like are generally considered about as reliable as the Greek press and unless there is something from a neutral source confirming the claim, it is excluded (I'm sure the Flags of the World website would say something). This is the practice followed in minority related issues -- do you know why? Because the governments of the countries in question dispute the claims so WP can't present them as a fact only on the word of a source with an obvious conflict of interest. //

REMOVAL OF IMAGE

I thought I'd add my two cents worth regarding the removal of the flag of Northern Epirus, from my user page:

It's a pity, because it was a detailed, clear flag, but no big deal. I did a more thorough search on Wikipedia and found an alternative picture to use. Hopefully it's ok to use?

Regards,

Philhellenism 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage Images Reply

Point taken.

I'll re-investigate the images that I have uploaded an amend their status accordingly.

Regards,

Philhellenism 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

image question

Can you check this one out? Image:SilencingTheGuns.jpg supposedly the copyright is released, it's released into pd . . . I'm finding that hard to believe as it's still being sold as prints. http://www.valorstudios.com/SilencingTheGuns.htm --Vidkun 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Christine Gregoire Image

The image on Christine Gregoire's article was removed -- since you noted this as the image was about to be deleted, just curious what was the problem with the image that was there? Seems odd to not have a photo of a sitting governor. Mike 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Derivative Works Image Question

Hey J, the link you provided, derivative work, has no info. So I am clueless as to how to properly source the Irish People image. All the additional pics I added to the original collage are commons files. Do I just list them and their licensing? What determines the final licensing format? Thanks! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I listed all the permissions for the additional photos. It all looks kosher to me, except perhaps for Mary Robinson. It's an official press photo, but the page seems a bit unclear as to whether the image is fair use outside of an article specifically about her. If it's too iffy, I can swap her out for someone else. Thanks! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What about images on stamps? Would I need to have taken the photograph of the stamp myself, or would an official image of an Irish stamp be usable in a collage? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! We may have found one. This one of Countess Markiewicz is PD in the US. I think that should work, yes? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello i was wondering if i can use flickr photos on commons or wikipedia i really do not know the appropriate license so if you could help me it would be appreciated and Happy New Years :-) Image Thank you! Nareklm 08:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Lazy J entry deleted.

hi JKelly, Thanks for your time, im actually the bass player in the Band Lazy J and i submitted the Lazy J entry. The main body of the text is the same as the Biog on our website, but as i wrote it for our website i thought i was entitled to have it used here without copyright issues. Is there any chance of reinstating the entry? Thanks.

Richard Goodall (sneekydevil) Lazy J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sneekydevil (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Nd band shot.jpg

Hi, thanks for reviewing the No Doubt article and Image:Nd band shot.jpg. I'm confused as to why you tagged the image with {{No copyright holder}} when the image is credited to the photographer with "courtesy of Chris Cufaro". Also what would be "evidence that media was intended for wide distribution"? Thanks for all your help, and I'm also about to post a couple comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/No Doubt/archive1, if you wouldn't mind taking a look. —ShadowHalo 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Would this be appropriate as {{promophoto}}? It came from the "Photo Sessions" section of the "Photo Gallery" at nodoubt.com (there's nothing on the site clearly labelled "press"). And I'll see about maybe getting some fanpics that can be freely licensed. —ShadowHalo 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How would I go about contacting the management team? There isn't any contact listed on the site. —ShadowHalo 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I found two different pictures that might be usable. The first one is this, which is available for sale as a "promo photograph", and its copyright holder is listed as Interscope. However, that seems somewhat a stretch. I haven't gotten any fanpics yet, but someone suggested this, which is unlikely to become freely licensed, but would it be possible to use it with permission under fair use? —ShadowHalo 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
My impression from WP:FUC is that if the image is low-resolution, it doesn't interfere with commercial sales of the image. Obviously people know what No Doubt looks like or can with a Google Image search, but a 26x20 cm picture cannot be replaced with a 3.0"x3.7" thumbnail. I think a fair use claim on this would be pretty reasonable. —ShadowHalo 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bug you again, but I have a question. You said that this image would not be usable since the copyright holder was unknown. I found it listed at a separate site listed as "Photographer: Joseph Cultice". Would it be acceptable to use the picture from the No Doubt site and credit it as such (especially since this one isn't being sold)? —ShadowHalo 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, I'm actually not expecting that the photo be around in a year or so. I'd have tagged the image with {{rfu}} long ago had the band not gone on hiatus, but since they're due to release an album in 2007/2008 and they don't make public appearances together, it's not possible to get a picture anytime soon. Though it may not be about the image, there's plenty of commentary about the subject of the image, so it doesn't seem like that would be a major concern. I think I'm going to go ahead and upload this image since having it in a gallery of photo sessions on the band's official site seems like an "implicit license to redistribute", assuming such a thing exists. —ShadowHalo 20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jock Stein Talk Archive

Having checked it I dont see what the link, m:OTRS, has to do with the issue. I couldnt see what possible purpose was served by the balnking of old discussion - something im fairly sure is against wiki policy. Perhaps you could explain to me what possible legitimate reason there could be for the blanking or "courtesy blanking" (whatever that is) of a page? siarach 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If every time i saw a page blanked i assumed that, despite the lack of any explanation ("This archive has been blanked. Please see the history for previous discussions." simply states what you have done and not WHY you have done it), there was some legitimate reason for that blanking then a hell of a lot of vandalism would go unreverted on Wikipedia. Niether m:OTRS or your basic edit comment on the Jock Stein Talk page provide any clear explanation of your blanking which, as ive pointed out, is usually the act of a vandal on wikipedia (hence the revert). The onus to avoid misunderstanding is upon you ; not upon those who come across well meant and valid edits which, due to lack of explanation, initially seem dubious - as was the case here. siarach 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Frustrated?

Yes. Good point. Time for a break.--Cberlet 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminding of another image used from akhtamar.org

Im using another picture Armenian-Dance2.jpg from http://www.akhtamar.org which Lara or Maral had emailed you permissions@wikipedia.org. Ararat arev 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Greetings. I wonder if you can help, being an admin & all that. We are having a lot of trouble with an obsessive individual on the philosophy page. He has a bizare theory about the history of philosophy, despite appearing to have no education of or knowledge of the subject. It's causing serious problems. I see he has been in involved in the Protocols of Zion page. I don't know much about that subject, but I can see his behaviour is following an identical pattern to what we are suffering (long diatribes, illogical rants). With all hope. Dbuckner 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS you will guess who I am talking about. I don't want to mention his name as he has a habit of following my edit trails. Dbuckner 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Red Paintings

As someone who doesn't use wikipedia that much I have found it very difficult to navigate the site. The reason why TheRedPaintings.gif keeps disappearing from their page is because I am the photographer who took the photo, the page breaches copyright by 1. not asking my permission and 2. not crediting me. I could not find a link to advise wikipedia of this breach, so the only way I could remedy this was to keep removing the image. I would like the image removed once and for all unless I am credited in full and permission is sought for the use of the image. I find it offensive that you say I should "consider improving rather than damaging the work of others".

I agree some of my prior edits were unnecessary, even acts of vandalism, however the image removal was simply that and as I stated earlier, I'm fine for the image to stay if someone had the decency to credit me and ask my permission, but of course that is far too difficult for the writer of the article to manage.

Of course thats what I mean, how much plainer can I put it? I haven't made any attacks on the content of the article for some time, in recent times all I have done is attempt to remove the image.

CharlotteClapham 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Blanik image

Someone seems to have had problems with the copyright of the Blanik image (Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg) and it seems to be been sufficiently serious to delete it quickly. The penalty surprised me, since it was applied to someone (User talk:PPGMD) who has just submitted one of his own photos. I keep an eye on the Gliding article, and fortunately I was able to insert another image after the Blanik suddenly vanished. Gliding was a featured article in November so I guess the copyrights were reviewed just before then. The first mention of a problem on PPGDM's user page seems to be on 5 January. I do not know who deleted the image, I would like to ask the deleter why he/she operates on about three day's notice of deletion. JMcC 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image

You deleted Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg without going through IFD, nor posting a notice on the image, nor the my talk page. I am the photographer and the uploader and was asked to change the license to something paletable to Wikipedias backward copyright policy do the page could reach FA status, I did so. PPGMD 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


If you weren't in such a rush you would have seen that I am the photographer, and I changed the license for the Wikipedia copy so that the image page could reach featured status. It was tagged and licensed after that date with Copyright Free Use. Which is the correct license for it. PPGMD 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jodie Foster image

Thanks for fixing that. —Chowbok ☠ 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

{{welcome}} -- I never thanked you for the welcome and useful links, so thanks. -- Kevin Browning 07:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Why? No thanks. Adding insufficient, disagreeable locator maps (without discussion) is unhelpful. Please discuss proposed changes beforehand as I have. Until then, I'll continue on my spree. Quizimodo 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully, I'm not saying that at all. Discuss first; implement something that a consensus agrees with instead of 'undoing' something just as ... deliberate. However, I will invoke the text that appears on every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." A wider discussion is underway, if interested. Quizimodo 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

I'd like to point out that you're being disruptive by deleting cited information. "Collectivism" is an essential part of fascism. Besides scholars of fascism and political philosophy, fascism themselves, such as Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile use the term to describe their philosophy. I provided a source but you deleted the information. There are many more sources. Should I provide twenty?Anarcho-capitalism 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your advice required

Hi. Can you please make a call on whether Image:Wallajah2.jpg is {{pd-art}}? It has been tagged {{no license}} eventhough the image had the pd-art tag initially. This image has been obviously taken without alteration from [2], the official website of the Prince of Arcot. There are no explicit copyright notices on the site. Can we consider this as a valid public domain image? Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've written to the website owner for permission. cheers Parthi talk/contribs 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've requested them to release the material under GDFL and display the appropriate message on the site. I have also asked them about the picture itself, its history, owner, date, etc. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags etc

Thanks a lot for your supportive comment there. Can you have a look at what I have done on Red Hot Chili Peppers please? I don't think that was a good fair use of the album cover images. Be happy if I was wrong in a way. Best wishes --Guinnog 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Concerning the same issue which started the 3RR infraction, I need to ask your advice on this matter. This diff shows the malicious and outright unilateral edits being undertaken by this user. I have attempted dialogue on the talk page, and it still is all coming down to this. What is the proper action in this instance? I am asking for help, because after being outright ignored at the ANI and then having 3RR charges brought up against me and being told I am in the wrong, I am requesting admin intervention in this matter. - WeniWidiWiki 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - hopefully that helps... - WeniWidiWiki 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(Non) Fair use image

My apologies for the mistake; thanks for notifying me. It was the only image I took from that site, so it shouldn't be a problem with any others. Thanks again, and let me know if you need anything in the future. Eric (EWS23) 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Can't say I know much about it, but hopefully the people at the NHL Wikiproject will be able to sort it out. Cheers, Eric (EWS23) 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

B movie

Jkelly, sorry to trouble you so often; this one looks like a biggie that flew under the radar at FAC because of additions made at the end of FAC. I haven't counted, but others have said 17 Fair Use images, and its the longest FA I'm aware of. Can you have a look here? The main editor resists size reduction and Fair Use issues, so we may need to bring it to FAR. I'd appreciate any input you can give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

(crossposted from Admin Noticeboard Incidents) Thanks for the pointer. I added this info into my statement on the evidence page there but thought a, um, more immediate forum might also be appropriate. I guess I'm feeling a certain frustration at the length of time since the beginning of the case without certain changes in behaviour. (Yes, I'm aware that Arbcom cases generally run from 1-2 months.) It was not my intent to circumvent the arbitration and apologize if it seemed so. --Pigmantalk • contribs 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Different thanks for your words. I'll take them to heart and look carefully at what more might be said. I certainly don't expect Arbcom to do much (if any) investigation outside of the presented evidence. I've tried to be clear and detailed in my presentation but admit I've been somewhat stymied about how to approach the workshop page. My ignorance of potential Arbcom actions has hampered me and perhaps that needs to be corrected. I've hesitated to be verbose because that has been a very wearying aspect of this situation to me. I've also hesitated to be overly legalistic in my approach (motions, requests, etc.) because I thought such actions belonged more to Arbcom than the parties involved. However, self-education is always an enriching activity. --Pigmantalk • contribs 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive words to Paul Pigman. He is a truly good guy and is not getting much encouragement lately. Plus he is under considerable stress and respects you. Thank you so much. Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Low res image licensing?

I have seen your name concerning image issues and I wonder if you might be able to help with a question I left elsewhere on wikipedia on the media copyright page, as I am trying to advise some artists in order to obtain more free images for wikipedia. The URL of my question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Release_of_low_res_image I will read that page. Thank you. 172.203.102.152 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Mitanni seal that was removed

User:Nareklm removed the Mitanni seal and put in "copyvio" in the image [3], when admin User:Jkelly, which handles the copyright images approved it. Nareklm was trying to justify his reasons by created this "false" info in order to remove a Mitanni "related" image. The Mitanni seal was put their and approved by admins and other users who work on Mitanni, otherwise they would have removed it right away as they do with other wrong edits Ararat arev 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mitanni seal image link is Image:Armenian-Mitanni.jpg Thank you. Please let me know soon about this. You approved this and now User:Nareklm is removing it. Ararat arev 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly were you here to respond? I want to make this clear, cause Nareklm is attempting to remove and put copyvio on this one Mitanni image you approved of here. Please let him know that is considered vandalism and removing something you guys approved. Dbachmann the admin also approved this image. So please let User:Nareklm know about this. Ararat arev 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hi there. I saw your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Flags. More and more I am seeing people arguing against flag icons. I hadn't seen your "it could mess up parsing of infoboxes" argument before, though. That is interesting. I too don't agree with the overuse (or use at all, sometimes) of flag icons. I have been considering trying to to generate a centralised debate on this so that there is more to point at than just disparate discussions all over Wikipedia. Would you be able to start or help with something like that? See also User_talk:Centrx#Flagicons, and specifically [4]. I'm going to make a start at the Manual of Style. Carcharoth 13:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done: "Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks." Carcharoth 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not an attack page

I have no dispute with Stirling Newberry, however, you've allowed him to whitewash his own life, even though his article was based upon a simple Google search about HIM. Seriously, Google his name. Nothing in the article was invalid or libelous. Turbulantsalad 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request concerning newcomer and image copyright

Hi, Jkelly. A newcomer made an edit that looked like vandalism, but when I examined his contributions, I saw that he had uploaded an image that would be relevant to the article he was trying to edit (I make no comment about legality), so I presume he was trying to add the image to the article. I suggested that he stop (as he was being reverted both by me and by a bot) and try just to do some normal editing for the moment, and that you or Durin would probably be happy to look at the image, help him with source tagging if it's an image that can be used here, and walk him through the steps. Of course, if the image isn't free, it will have to be deleted. If you have time, could you take a look at User talk:Kirbylee545454? Thanks. Musical Linguist 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Stirling Newberry. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey

What do you think of all this? Are the images Image:Hurrian-AncientArmenian.jpg and Image:Nkar3.jpg PD? Khoikhoi 06:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. :-) Khoikhoi 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Renée Fleming image

Hi Jkelly, sorry for spamming you (I'm sending this to a few others as well!) but if you have time, I'd welcome your comments at Talk:Renée Fleming. It's about a rather poor quality photo, taken by one of my students, which could replace the fair use image, but I have doubts as to how poor the quality can be and still have Wikipedia prefer it to fair use. Cheers. Musical Linguist 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (I've changed my signature because I've seen so many complaints about people causing confusion by having signatures that were different from their usernames, but I'm still Ann!)

Please do something about this vandalism

A user operating from an anonymous IP address with no more than 3 edits to his address, 2 of which were blatant vandalism and reversion, repeatedly reverted my edits made to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). There was a consensus to change the format by several editors, and then he tries to oppose the action but does not offer any real supporting arguments nor does he participate in the request for comment. Now the debate has stagnated, no one else has contributed to it, and he expects that the changes to the article will not be made simply because he alone opposes it, but refuses to present any real arguments on the article's talk page. Obviously, the article cannot be left to stagnate, so please do something. Pugno di dollari 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hi jkelly, the talkpage comment i referred to in my edit (opposing the change) was mine. it gives several valid reasons for not changing the rules. it appears the formatting of the msg was incorrect so it didnt get signed and ended up before somebody else's comment instead of after. so in fact i had contributed to the discussion already, and recently - i guess the formatting issue confused everybody, including the above user who incorrectlyt states "the debate has stagnated and no one else contributed to it". in any case, i dont think 2 or 3 users is enough for a "consensus" in a manual of style issue, and indeed its better to err on the side of caution and not add a new instruction to the manual of style if the majority of pages dont follow it, and there are dissenters (as in this case). as for the personal attacks ("vandalism" etc), i will take the high ground. cheers.

Plastic Paddy again

The IP editor who was revert-warring is back. Also, there is some other weirdness going on there which I've documented here. Would you mind semi-protecting the entry again until this is resolved? - WeniWidiWiki 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am editing. 86.42.160.47 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't figure why these 2 editors are so passionate about this article, and they are not even Irish, Scotland I believe The term is not worthy to be in Irish culture cat. 86.42.160.47 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also watching this article again. There's also malicious redirecting going on at Plastic Paddyism by the same IP editor - Alison✍ 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Hi. Thanks for your suggestion at the "Media copyright questions" page. I made about five attempts to register an account (with the same name) at Wikimedia Commons, but I kept getting a message saying "Login error: Incorrect or missing confirmation code." There was a simple sum for me to do each time (32 - 2, or 5 + 7, or 12 -3), and I really didn't get them wrong! I'll try again tomorrow. It's late in the UK. ElinorD 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I have registered an account at Wikimedia Commons, and have uploaded six photos.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ElinorD

I found it very difficult to register an account, and had to do so from a different computer. When I had done so, I found that I had difficulty in logging on to Wikipedia. I kept getting messages saying that I needed to have cookies enabled. When I finally (I don't know how) managed to log on to Wikipedia again, I found I could no longer log on to Wikimedia Commons. (I got the same message about cookies.) Is that normal? I do have cookies enabled, and it seemed to work some of the time, even though I hadn't altered the settings.

I'd be grateful if you could warn me if I start uploading too much, or if I am uploading things that Wikipedia wouldn't want. I am sure that it costs money to have a lot of files stored on the server, so I don't want to keep uploading things that Wikipedia wouldn't want to use. I have in mind a water cooler, some kitchen utensils, some examples of Royal Worcester porcelain, a classic Royal Doulton figure, a large domestic ice cream maker (very different from the one in the "ice cream maker" article), and a set of ornaments based on the characters from the Beatrix Potter books. Please let me know if I am overdoing it.

Bunchofgrapes added my popcorn maker to the popcorn article, and I looked at the source code and added it exactly as it was to the popcorn maker article. Is it the same procedure when adding an image that is at Wikimedia Commons, instead of at Wikipedia, or does it get more complicated? I think some of my images could be added to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_mill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_salt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontanini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_scene

However, I don't want to start adding my own images to everything I see, expecially if an article already has enough images! ElinorD 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

SOUP

Thanks for that — I hadn't seen it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works - have I done something wrong?

Thank you for your very helpful messages, both here and at Wikimedia Commons. Having read the page about Derivative works, I'm now getting a bit worried about the Fontanini cribs and figurines that I uploaded.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fontaninicrib.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fontaninicrib2.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Threewisemen.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fontaninifigures.jpg

With regard to the Hummel figurines that I was going to photograph and upload (it's a whole set), there is an article about the artist here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Innocentia_Hummel

and about the figurines here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummel_figurines

I am trying to see what other people have done before me, and I see that the figurines article has this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hummel_Christmas_Tree_Ornament.JPG

which is on Wikipedia, and has apparently been released by the photographer into the public domain.

However, the article about the artist has this picture

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:School-boys.jpg

which is on Wikimedia Commons. It says that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose - but somebody has requested that it be deleted here

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Hummel_pictures

on the grounds that "Artist Berta Hummel died in 1946, work is copyrighted until 2017. The GFDL seems to be applied fraudulently here."

I'm confused as to how two very similar images can be in the public domain and "fraudulently" licensed. One of the contributors must be wrong, I think.

I'm sorry if I've done anything wrong in uploading those images. I won't add them to any articles for the moment. I recall that when I was uploading, there was something on the page saying that images without the proper copyright information would be deleted, so I presume somebody can delete my images again, if necessary?

I might go ahead and add the pepper mill image to an article, but I'll definitely leave the figurines for the moment, and I won't upload any other figurines unless I'm sure it's okay to do so. Can you look into this for me please, and let me know if I've messed up, and if so, what I need to do now.

Sorry to make so much trouble for you. ElinorD 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. (Am I meant to start a new reply with a colon at the left?) As you suggested, I have tried to do a little bit of work on the Fontanini article. I will do more another time. Much of the information came from the official box and the collectors' cards that came with my own (small) Fontanini crib. Fontanini is a company, but it was founded by Emanuele Fontanini. I don't know when he died, but it was probably less than seventy years ago. He was born around 1880, but I don't know the exact date. In any case, his great grandson is still producing cribs, so I presume there would still be copyright. I saw on your Wikimedia Commons page that you are an administrator there. Is it possible for you to delete any images that were wrongly uploaded by me? I added two of them to the Fontanini article just so that they would be in the history, but removed them immediately, as I'm not sure of the status of those images. Could you please take a look at my second last edit at that article and tell me if you think those two images could or should be uploaded onto Wikipedia now (with the "statue" tag), while being deleted from Commons? There was another crib that I uploaded, and also figures of the three wise men with their camel. From what I have read, the three wise men cannot be used in any article if they are not freely licensed. It would be overdoing it to put them into the Fontanini article, along with the other images, and I don't think they would qualify as "Fair Use" in the article about the Biblical magi, as an essential illustration of the subject. I will leave it to you to delete anything you think should be deleted, but I am positive that my salt and pepper grinders have been legally released into the public domain! ElinorD 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just looked at Wikimedia Commons and I see that you have deleted the Fontanini stables and figures. Thank you very much for that. I will upload one or two of them to Wikipedia, and I will make sure to use the correct tag. ElinorD 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

XO Communications Blocks

Regarding your post to Dmcdevit, the XO Communications Blocks are:

207.88.52.2 | user | talk | edits | log | CWI - tor - search | block log

67.152.0.0/16 | user | talk | edits | log | CWI - tor - search | block log

67.153.0.0/16 | user | talk | edits | log | CWI - tor - search | block log

67.154.0.0/16 | user | talk | edits | log | CWI - tor - search | block log

67.155.0.0/16 | user | talk | edits | log | CWI - tor - search | block log

None of them show up as open proxy servers. Both Dmcdevit and Centrx use these blocks recklessly when they get angry. --AllThatUDue 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Replaceable fair use

Hello there! It appears that there is a bit of conflict brewing on the template I mentioned. Since the template is protected (ergo all the warring parties are admins), page protection doesn't seem to be an action for ending the fighting. In any case, please discuss things on the talk page because it's much better than wheel warring. (I'm giving people involved in the RV-athon this message. If you know someone else who needs to read it, send it to them, too.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

Thanks, I appreciate that. It's been really interesting working on an article about a song I dislike so much, but what's more is known more for its reception than its actual quality. ShadowHalo 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image with no source

Hello. The image Image:John Brooke-Little with Earl Marshal.jpg was apparently just deleted, without any notice at the article using it. It's quite possible the source info really was lacking, but it was used on a featured article and this is usually checked during the FAC process. I've also noticed a few cases where source/licensing info was removed by a vandal; this article was recently on the main page. I doubt if the admins deleting these images regularly check the page history for this sort of vandalism. Could you check when you have a chance? Also, perhaps the image deletion admins should have a tool which generates a list of all templates ever used on an image page? Gimmetrow 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wiki Policy Endoreses Personal Attacks?

I'm writing you because you have commented on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recurring_Personal_Attacks.2C_Admin_Attention_Requested. Dont you think User:Coredesat apologizing without mentioning personal attacks encourage incivil behaviour? Coredesat's apology: [5] Personal Attacks: "moron" [6], "pest, whiner, etc..." [7], "racist scum, etc..." [8]

User:LSLM, taking encouragement from all this, started his behaviour again, including making personal attacks right in Coredesat's talk page. [9] Others: [10], [11]. This may all sound very trivial to you, from an outside perspective, but I do not like to be accused unjustfully just because someone can demonize me to discredit my edits. Lukas19 04:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Define 'insultive'

Being insultive and sarcastic are two entirly different things. I would apreciate it if people would finally realize that instead of claiming everything to be personal attacks. For instance, if I were to say "you are an idiot" that is being insultive. If I were to say "if you can't understand this, you are an idiot" that is being sarcastic, unless the tone is set specifically for insult (illustrated better verbally than written).

Now, wikipedia has a nice little tag indicating mod status. (or administrator, same thing), if he doesn't want it on his user page, that is his perogative, but it is highly misleading. And my reply to his actions 'is' highly justified, I've had numerious random people come in and mess with my talk page who weren't (or didn't publicly display) administrators. Twice, i've had rediculious warnings issued by non-moderators (the first one was a warning of vandalism for clearing the 'sandbox').

At most, you can say I am 'argumentitive' (and don't pull out WP:POINT because it doesn't apply.) If you interpret sarcasam and arumentation as being insultive, that is your perspective, but it is most certainly not the perspective of the whole. (yes, the inflicted would 'gladly' call it insultive as an excuse to impose his rule. But then, he would be surcoming to corruption.) The general point is that people who 'want' to interpert something as something else will, even if they know it to be something else.

And, because I can feel that you are gonna be highly defensive about me being an "insult-a-bot", I might as well say that the wikipedian adminstration is highly curropt, due to the sheer number of moderators (I know the argument is the sheer number of wikipedians, but active dis-contributors is a millionth of that number [that doesn't include 'bad' contributers]), the massive misinterpretation of the policies (often, they don't "leave" much room for that, but people still manage. I mean, they recorded the general consensus on what each IS, but you can't issue it just because it "sounds" right), the failure for double checking (Once an administrator makes a decision, there 'is' no reverting it, [because use of 'unblock' makes you more guilty (Seriously... using unblock is like saying "I am smarter than you" and you have to present an argument, which in turn is 'not' favorable with other administrators), because an administrator questioning another makes an internal affairs issue, and because they 'don't' check up on the warnings. A warning can come from anywhere, and every administrator will accept it as true.) And the inforcment of only 1 policy (with a few minor exceptions), vandalism. I mean, there are several 'contributors' that seemingly break numerious policies (primarly 3RVR, NPOV and OR) on their 'contributions' in every way, mass reverting of an article and putting in biased or self generated infromation is as bad as vandalism. Infact, it can even be consdered vandalism.

So now that my rant has come to a close, I rest assured that you only read the first sentence, and reverted the rest. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.212 (talk • contribs)

Please explain your reasons for commending user Biophys

Dear Jkelly,

Being blocked by William Connolley on the grounds of your determination reverts by Biophys as valid, I would like to have your explanations on how you come to conclusion, being English and French speaker, that reverts by Biophys of Boris Stomakhin article are commended? Please explain why you consider [12] Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 as unreliable source ? Also I would like to have your explanations on how you, person which doesn't speak Russian, evaluated the material in the reference? Vlad Fedorov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I posted my comments about this at the talk page of William Connolley and 3RR notice board. Biophys 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

I have been told you are one of the most respected fair use image decisionmakers. I am considering FAC2 on Campbell's Soup Cans. There were vocal complaints about my fair image usage. I have revised all image pages and captions and would like your opinion on my fair image usage before renominating my article. Please respond at my talk page. TonyTheTiger 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Amy Weber

[13]... is that ok.. or can i cite WWE TV during that time --- Paulley 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, we are having this same problem with many articles at WP:PW.. were tryin to figure something out but it isnt easy by no means -- Paulley
Lol fair enough --- Paulley
That's cool i have never seen the message templates before --- Paulley

I'll take you up on that offer for help

Ok, I just took the step of creating a Wiki account, and attempting my first edit. Now I notice that the almost instant response came from you--the same handle that signed my "welcome to Wiki" message. Ok, I know I'm wading into a political firestorm, but, I hope you'll see, it's my intent and goal to do so seriously, with intellectual honesty. And the first thing that it obvious to me is that I need some serious orientation about the proper proceedures around here. I'm content to defend the substance of my positions, but I have to confess I'm just guessing about the proper way to present them. I'm also stunned to discover that, apparently, the wiki pages are patrolled by bots, who instantly revert any changes to pages that are of particular interest to certain political factions. Surely that's contrary to the purpose of this enterprise, yes? Or is that a symptom of the fact that I'm actually not following the proper protocol? Put another way, who really is the arbiter of what can and cannot be said here? I'm busily reading links, and trying to follow the rules, but some human intervention would be greatly appreciated. QBeam 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt categories and image tags

Hello, I must confess that I have not yet read all the pages you directed me to in your welcome message at Wikimedia Commons, but I will read them before I become more active there. (I have read the page about Derivative works.) Anyway, I was uploading a few more images last night, and I went to your discussion page there, and saw a message at the top saying that it's not enough to upload images: people have to be able to find them. I saw also that you had added my salt and pepper mills to categories. I was uploading Image:yoghurtmaker.jpg (which I've added to the Yoghurt article), and I guessed that there might be a category called Category:Milk. So I looked for it, and yes, it existed. Inside that, there was a Category:Dairy products, and inside Dairy products, I found Category:Yoghurt, and Category:Yogurt. Should they both be there? I didn't like to try changing it, in case I might be doing the wrong thing. Here on Wikipedia, I notice that if I search for Yogurt, I get taken to Yoghurt. Anyway, I decided to add my image to the "Yoghurt" category, because that's the spelling that I use.

Having read the page on Derivative works, I'm still unsure about the borderline between free and non-free. For example, if I took a photo of some Folio Society books, the photo would be fair use, and could only be used in the Folio Society article (which already has several photos). If I took a photo of an empty antique Sheraton-style bookcase, say for use in the Sheraton Style article, I'm sure I could release that photo into the public domain. But what if I took a photo of the bookcase while it was full of Folio books? The front cover of the books wouldn't appear; the angle would be like in the photo of the bookshelf at [14] (on the left), except that the Sheraton has a glass door. My feeling is that if I claimed that it was a photo of an antique bookcase, and put it into the Sheraton style article, it would be a valid use of GDFL or PD (people don't expect bookcases to be empty!), but if I then claimed that exactly the same photo was a photo of Folio books, and put it into the Folio Society article, people might start arguing that it was invalidly tagged as a free image. It's confusing.

If I'm taking up too much of your time with these questions, please feel free just to direct me to the appropriate place to ask them - perhaps even at Wikimedia Commons? In any case, I'm not in any hurry for an answer.

Thanks for your help. ElinorD 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)