User talk:KnatLouie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cokesanta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cokesanta.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dudikoff_michael8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dudikoff_michael8.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Pyun

Hi, what's controversial about Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon? Just wondering. heqs 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:040511 mcilvaine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:040511 mcilvaine.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytny 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Dudikoff michael8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dudikoff michael8.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 08:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dudikoff pic

Video box covers are fair use on Wikipedia, so find one that has a big pic of Dudikoff on it! I did for his bud David Bradley.Bawtyshouse 15:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifascism

What we need is a bevy of people for support. Who can we contact at Wikiality to dedicate the Ides of January as Wikifascist Day? I propose that over the next ten days we work up the best definition of Wikifascist by Wikipedia's own rules, and on January 15th it gets posted. On that day and for the next fortnight we keep checking up on it to defend it's presence and re-post of a Deletest takes it down. Like Wikiality says, if enough people believe in it it will be true...right? In Defense of the Artist 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Margolis

Hi, apparently my edits on Mark Margolis angered you. You say I deleted information, but when I review my edit, the only thing I see I deleted was about Ellen Burstyn, which is not relevant to Margolis. Here is what I started with:

"Margolis is perhaps most famous for his role as 'Sol' from π, and has been acting in three movies directed by Darren Aronofsky, who for the upcoming movie The Fountain, specifically wrote in parts for Ellen Burstyn and Margolis, who were both previously also cast in Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream."

And I changed it to this:

"Margolis is perhaps most famous for his supporting roles in all three films by Darren Aronofsky, who specifically wrote a small part for him in The Fountain."

I merely condensed the wording of the paragraph, but all the information remains: Margolis has roles in all three Aronofsky movies and his role in the Fountain was written for him. Further, when you reverted my edit, you re-introduced incorrect information, a bad link, and bad grammar into the article. The Fountain is no longer an upcoming movie, the link to the movie Pi is wrong, and the phrase "has been acting" is bad wording. I'm going to take a guess that what angered you about my edit was that I deleted the specific titles of Aronofsky's other two movies, so I'm going to remove the incorrect content and replace those titles. I suppose someone who is unfamiliar with Aronofsky's work might like those titles pointed out. -Captain Crawdad 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I changed a few other things as well, but had difficulty squishing my comments in the comment bar. If you have any questions about the changes I made, gimme a holler. -Captain Crawdad 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Brisco-Comet.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shit blister

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Shit blister. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. NawlinWiki 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifascist

Please stop. If you continue to create inappropriate pages such as Wikifascist, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

== RE:Wikifascist ==

I like your reason for your deletion of the recently created site by stating it was neologist.. I looked it up, and "a neologist is an innovator in the area of a doctrine or belief system, and is often considered heretical or subversive by the mainstream clergy or religious institution(s)." - So I guess that makes me Thomas Edison, and you one of the mainstream crowd laughing at my ideas.

It's apparently okay to delete all the sites you want (like you do), but when trying to add something new and enlighten people, then you get threats on your life instead. Thanks a lot, asshole. I ain't gonna add anything new and interesting here anymore, off to urban dictionary for that, this site is clearly only for minor insignificant edits. Thank you very much.

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:PinkCadillac Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PinkCadillac Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dudikoff PlatoonLeader.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dudikoff PlatoonLeader.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dudikoff StrategicCommand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dudikoff StrategicCommand.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:7a59.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:7a59.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Abraxas5-secondus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Abraxas5-secondus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hello!
I found the "List of worst admins" section of your userpage offending. Could you please remove it? No doubt the admins themselves would be highly offended too.--Phoenix-wiki 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I can see how you got confused, as the list originally started out being a bit hateful. But now it serves merely as a list of editors who have deleted things I have created (and since I mostly only edit low-profile things, they must be very attentive). I do not wish to stalk or personally attack any user, the list is purely there for my own reference. P.P.S: How/why did you discover my page?KnatLouie (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your userpage

I thought you meant attentive in a worse way (see WP:STALK). It seemed as if it was an attack to other users, and I reverted. However, you can't do ANYTHING you want to with your userpage, if you look at this policy: WP:U. That decides what you can and cannot do with your userpage. My apologies. Jonathan § 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please stop

PLEASE STOP maintiangng a list of users that you dont like it is onsidered a violation of No PErsonal Attacks and a gross ABuse of Privileges of editing your otwn talk page. this is juat a friendly warning and I hope will you take it into considerated?

Whatever. Control-freak.KnatLouie (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is "Control-freak" also offending? Then take a chill-pill. That's how people talk in the real world, and it's NOT meant to cause serious offense. It is not an expletive nor is it a threat.KnatLouie (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reported to administrators

Your list of users has been reported to the administrator's incident noticeboard. You might want to take part in the discussion.--Phoenix-wiki 18:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, control-freak. Now you can rest easy, since I will not put the list back up again. But you all know who you are. And thank you for the threat too. KnatLouie (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

- Who can really define what is "offensive"? Is a list of random user-names offensive?? If you do not like to be on the list, fine. Write me and I'll remove you. I didn't say you were assholes or anything like that, just said the guys on the list were "attentive", and then defined what the word meant. Nothing offensive about that, unless you just WANT it to be so.

[edit] Your user page

Hey KnatLouie, I learned about your user page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#KnatLouie. I think your user page is awesome. I agree with the things you said about image deletion warnings. Every company would indeed love to have their dumb characters' pictures plastered all over this place. And all these new rules, detailed fair-use rationales are so stupid. I hate that deleted articles history page can only be accessed by administrators. If they would just plank the page, we could all still get the page history. Nice to meet you! Jecowa (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

With regard to your comments on User talk:Phoenix-wiki: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Phoenix-wiki 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:KnatLouie. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have called two users control freaks on your talk page, at #Reported to administrators and #please stop Phoenix-wiki 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You can report users you think are disruptive at the administrator's incident noticeboard. I have, however, never edited your userpage, and my comments above were in good faith. The first asking you to remove offensive material from your userpage, and the second notifying you that a user had reported you to administrators.--Phoenix-wiki 19:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I no longer care about the list. It's fine, just stop coming to my talk page and giving out. It might be best if your forgot this whole thing happened and went back to editing some articles simewhere.--Phoenix-wiki 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, your wish is my command.KnatLouie (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am so glad that I don't rate your list of administrators. Take a break and come back when you feel ready. :-) Bearian (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For those of you who enjoy deleting things and harassing users..

Please see: fascist. Thank you. KnatLouie (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, your behaviour has come to my attention whilst fixing a small error on a talk page, I just would like to let you know that your behaviour is not conducive to the type of friendly collaboration we like here at Wikipedia, and I strongly urge you to be more friendly, cordial and polite in your interactions with other users, even those who you dislike. Comments such as the one above do little to help maintain the polite, friendly, warm and civil atmosphere we like here. I hope that you will try and be a little more friendly and mellow in your interactions with other users, and that you can put your past behaviour behind you. Best Wishes. Nick (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I reckon you took offense by this subject? Why should I be friendly when other users continually piss all over the work and effort I put into this site? I've had it. Goodbye Wikipedia, and good luck. I'll be on hiatus from now on. Feel free to delete all my work if you want - oh wait a minute, you already do that without my consent, nevermind then.KnatLouie (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Brisco Bowler.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Brisco Bowler.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ikit (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Avenging force steve-james dudikoff crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avenging force steve-james dudikoff crop.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Exterminator poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Exterminator poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed fair use bla bla bla bla bla bla.........!!!!"

I've only got one thing to say to you guys: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you've got problems with the "rationales", then FIX IT YOURSELF dammit!! Bastards! Now please, STFU and leave me alone!

KnatLouie (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PinkCadillac.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:PinkCadillac.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO IT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] I get the sense all this is getting to you

Don't worry about it mate! In reference to all the beurocrats etc. and fighting their rules, I was once given a quote: "Don't headbutt an ape, because their skulls are thick and their minds are thicker" Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it a lot actually. I'm so sick and tired of getting the same messages over and over again, especially since these users (or bots) KNOW what license the images need, but they refuse to just replace it themselves and instead send messages to the original uploaders, who HAS to respond within a few days, or the images will be deleted - and for myself, most of the times I add an image, some bozo just comes along, tags it, and skidaddles away again, making sure the image is finally gone forever. It's a sisyphean task I don't feel like doing anymore, as it's a waste of my time, and the reasons why images should have these "rationales" are so lame and vague, that even a moron could see why a picture is up there.. "I can see you've uploaded this poster for this movie, WHY have you done so? EXPLAIN!" - well duh.. to show how the poster looks for this movie, so people can recognize it. But it's apparently not how it's done here on wikipedia, one has to use certain formal phrases and use wiki-codes to get a picture added here. I've had my fill, no more of that. KnatLouie (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to :Image:PinkCadillac.jpg. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. βcommand 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like talking to bots, so please do not write or contact me again, as I consider it to be spam. Thanks.KnatLouie (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I'm seeing above, do I have this correct?
  1. You upload fair-use images (images that are not copyright-free)
  2. You do not supply the required fair-use rationale.
  3. You refuse to fix your image uploads, and intend to continue uploading fair-use images, without the appropriate rationales

Is that about correct? SQLQuery me! 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you this:

  1. In the past tense, yes.
  2. I supply reasonable information that should be sufficient for every non-retarded person to understand, although it may not live up to whatever high writing criteria standards wikipedia might have.
  3. I tried fixing an image once, but it still got deleted, never to be retrieved again (I lost it myself too, so couldn't upload it again). I've also had quite a few images deleted because I wasn't online a certain period and couldn't respond to a tag. I am now completely done uploading images to wikipedia. It will never happen again, unless things here change, trust me.

P.S: I'm very amazed at how fast you guys are online. Must be wonderful if it worked like that in real life too.KnatLouie (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Regarding #2. You are posting these images to Wikipedia, not on your own personal website. What we expect to see of images that cause us a potential liability does matter. If you can't/won't abide the rules, don't upload. To point #3, if you find the link to the dead image, let me know, and I will personally look at it. If it's all good and shouldn't have been deleted, I will undelete it myself. SQLQuery me! 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Knat, fast response is really just a matter of having the right software, there are tools you can find and lots of us write our own. Lots of network maintenance people really do have tools that let them respond within minutes in real-life.
Rather than you getting frustrated and giving up, it would be much better if you could learn how to write a good non-free rationale, everyone would win. Maybe we could put you in touch with some more experienced editors who could help you with that? It would be a shame if you just get mad and give up. Franamax (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I might do that sometime.. just not at the moment, as I'm just too damn annoyed at those who waste time tagging stuff instead of just correcting it themselves. Imagine if there was a gas leak at a power-plant, and some guy saw it, but instead of just plugging the hole himself, he sent a notice to another guy who allegedly was responsible for taking care of the plant, although not knowing whether or not the caretaker would even get the message, thus risking destroying (aka deleting) everything, instead of just fixing the goddamn hole himself!!KnatLouie (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll buy some of that - but if you work around gas and you see a leak, you damn sure better know exactly how to plug it, otherwise you run your butt off to deliver a warning and get the gas shut off until someone qualified fixes it. And if you see hundreds of other workers every day causing gas leaks, sooner or later you're going to stop fixing them and just start red-tagging and shutting off the feed, right? And in ref to a comment you made above, the rationales aren't for "retards", they're for lawyers ;) Wikipedia has a big problem with non-free image use, it has to get solved, and strict rules seem to be the best way to do it. It's too bad you get caught in the crossfire, but the problem does need to get solved, and bots are going to be a part of it just because there are soo many images. So things need to be made machine-readable so we can verify all our content and be sure some huge lawsuit doesn't come swooping down. The more you can help with that, the better it's gonna be and keep uploading great images. So yeah, cool off a bit, it's not like it's you in particular being targeted, it's just that really big systems do need to have at least a few firm rules. Regards. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I might get back to updating and adding images here again sometime in the future, but just not now. Think I'm getting the point about the bots helping out, although it still annoys me that the bots don't just have some feature, that could either: a) just auto-fix the images, or b) send a SUGGESTION to the original uploader and tell him/her what could be done better to ensure that the picture would stay. It's quite timeconsuming to figure out for oneself what rationales one has to place in order for the image to not be deleted.KnatLouie (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree that the way non-free images are handled right now seems a little like "we're mice and they keep moving the cheese" but it's being discussed and people do want to make it better. It would be nice if there was some way when you are uploading that you could check your rationale with all the various bots so you'd know in advance if it was going to fail, but that's not there right now. You probably already know this, but here are some FUR templates and here is the general purpose template. The more info you put in them the better, and you can always try to find someone more experienced to give you some advice. Most people are pretty helpful if it's an area they can help in. Franamax (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for the tips, I'll probably look a bit more into it when I feel like uploading pictures again (if I ever will). KnatLouie (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks?

Thanks for the comment. I'm not really trying to "fight the power"; I was just fighting the accusation of being disruptive. I don't understand the definition and I have gone looking for it. I just find it hard to believe I'm "disruptive" for editing my own user page. Anyway, good luck to you. Timneu22 (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I wish you good luck too, and hope you find whatever bug may have accused you falsely.KnatLouie (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the Good work

Even though they will never understand why it is we think they are wrong. Good Luck! Zenasprime (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:48Hours16.jpeg}

Thank you for uploading Image:48Hours16.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


  • sigh* - well, then it's bye-bye to another great picture. P.S: Please don't bother me with these things again, okay??
Well, I tried to bother you before, and I'll try once more to bother you. I went to the trouble of showing you where the rationales are, you could at least try, how hard is it to look here, see the screenshot rationale and either give it a try, or ask someone else for help with it? Take a look at what I did and tell me you couldn't have tried that yourself. Sure, I may be wrong and it gets challenged later, but what's the point of sighing and waving your handkerchief? Non-free images need a Licensing section and a fair-use rationale for each place they're used. Keep trying man, and ask some people for help - there's lots of them around, honest. Franamax (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- Thanks for the help, but it's just too much hassle, and in the end, utterly pointless. If I need good pictures I'll just google them. wikipedia is full of useless images, eg. like the one on this page: James White (basketball player). KnatLouie (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Why did you delete Viewaskewniverse Motifs?

View Askewniverse Motifs was deleted because it was a broken redirect (WP:CSD#R1). The page it redirected to was List of View Askewniverse motifs, which was deleted by another admin. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)