User talk:Quadell/archive27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives
  1 (4/8/2004 – 9/14/2004) 1 - 50
  2 (9/16/2004 – 10/15/2004) 51 - 100
  3 (10/16/2004 – 11/18/2004) 101 - 150
  4 (11/18/2004 – 12/8/2004) 151 - 200
  5 (12/8/2004 – 12/30/2004) 201 - 250
  6 (12/31/2004 – 2/11/2005) 251 - 300
  7 (2/11/2005 – 3/5/2005) 301 - 350
  8 (3/5/2005 – 3/29/2005) 351 - 400
  9 (3/30/2005 – 5/21/2005) 401 - 450
  10 (5/22/2005 – 8/06/2005) 451 - 500
  11 (8/06/2005 – 10/14/2005) 501 - 550
  12 (10/16/2005 – 11/22/2005) 551 - 600
  13 (11/23/2005 – 1/12/2006) 601 - 650
  14 (1/12/2006 – 2/2/2006) 651 - 700
  15 (2/2/2006 – 2/21/2006) 701 - 750
  16 (2/22/2006 – 3/24/2006) 751 - 800
  17 (3/25/2006 – 8/28/2006) 801 - 850
  18 (8/29/2006 – 10/13/2006) 851 - 900
  19 (10/13/2006 – 11/4/2006) 901 - 950
  20 (11/4/2006 – 11/29/2006) 951 - 1000
  21 (11/29/2006 – Christmas) 1001 - 1050
  22 (12/27/2006 – 5/10/2007) 1051 - 1100
  23 (5/10/2007 – 6/17/2007) 1101 - 1150
  24 (6/17/2007 – 6/25/2007) 1151 - 1200
  25 (6/25/2007 – 7/4/2007) 1201 - 1250
  26 (7/4/2007 – 7/9/2007) 1251 - 1300
  27 (7/9/2007 – 7/12/2007) 1301 - 1350
  28 (7/13/2007 – 7/16/2007) 1351 - 1400
  29 (7/16/2007 – 7/21/2007) 1401 - 1450
  30 (7/21/2007 – 7/27/2007) 1451 - 1500
  31 (7/27/2007 – 8/2/2007) 1501 - 1550
  32 (8/3/2007 – 8/14/2007) 1551 - 1600
  33 (8/14/2007 – 8/25/2007) 1601 - 1650
  34 (8/25/2007 – 9/13/2007) 1651 - 1700
  35 (9/14/2007 – 10/5/2007) 1701 - 1750
  36 (10/5/2007 – 12/10/2007) 1751 - 1800
  37 (12/10/2007 – 12/21/2007) 1801 - 1850
  38 (12/21/2007 – ) 1851 -
Current talk
This archive contains messages from July 9, 2007, to July 12, 2007. Wow, that's a busy talk page.

Contents

[edit] Infobox Bot

I have made a few more improvements. Can you see anything I need to further improve? I am still working, but I was wondering if you had any more ideas. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, thanks for your post on the infoboxes talk. You said you wanted to keep up to date with the syntax, so I'll inform you that there are two more parameters - "other" (other information) and "Excl. comp." (Exlusion compliant?). You may want to add them. Also, saying "yes" (lower case y) on the Excl. comp. variable will add a cat to the bot. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot

Your bot is adding a bunch of rat pages with the sentence "It it found..." instead of "It is found..." I fixed a few of them, but when I looked at the bot's contributions, I figured it would be easier for you to have the bot fix all of them.--Old Hoss 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for finding this. *Hangs head in shame* – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot source code

Hi, I hope you don't mind, I've just fixed up the source code for Polbot so it can be viewed in wiki, feel free to revert me if don't like it. Happy editing/coding. --Chris g 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's great! Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimes image sourcing problems are solved in the weirdest of manners

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_July_7#Image:Trevor_Blackwell.jpg for what may give you a small chuckle. -N 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, good for him. Good sleuthing, by the way! – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boss

Hi,

>>Tatyaa, please don't upload photos of living people, unless you created them yourself.

Ok Boss...

Rgds, --Tatyaa 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadell vs Polbot

You seem to be fighting against your own bot at System of a Down and List of theoretical physicists. Any reason why?! Polbot categorised both articles as possibly living, despite not being individuals. Pontificake 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<grin>. Yes, there's something funny going on, as you could tell. I'm testing a system whereby I will add information to articles about individuals with {{WPBiography}} templates on the talk pages, making sure the information there and in the categories matches. I've been running some, checking, reverting, changing code, repeating, a lot. (SOAD shouldn't really have the WPBio template on the talk page, since it's not a person. That's the root of the problem.) See the details at User:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run and its talk page. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No probs! I've removed Possibly Living People from the two pages where it had been added. At the moment I'm trying to work through that category clearing out as many entries as possible... Pontificake 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bksiyengar.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bksiyengar.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please delete. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:ParkerBros-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ParkerBros-Logo.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer needed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot bio functions

See my conclusions at User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. Basically, it all looks fine to me, though the seemingly infinite variety of possible problems suggests to me that, even though Polbot is being conservative here, the function should be ramped up slowly in size over a truly random sample, to see if any further problems drop out of the woodwork, and the category function should be separated from the sortkey function. Also, I forgot to mention it, but it would help if the log put in a blank column marker, instead of just nothing when, say, ds is not there, or cp is not there. Also, it is annoying to have the record of what it did on its contributions list, and the data it found, in two separate places. Is it not possible for the log to also record the data at the articles it edited, and to mark the data it added? I'll demonstrate over there. Carcharoth 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kung Fu Hustle

Your insistance that there's a connection between Kung Fu Hustle and the Matrix is confusing and a bit baseless. Why not contribute to the discussion page and make sense of your decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmscstl (talk • contribs)

I don't insist that there's a connection. I simply noticed that two sources claim there is, and that you keep removing sourced information. I have no opinion at all on whether there's a connection or not, which is why I'm not discussing that. I'm only commenting on your actions in that dispute, which are inappropriate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
But the sources provided are trash. One of them is entirely unreadable and the other is little more than a blog. Do you honestly just go look to make sure the source is a live link? This kind of self important garbage is what cheapens wiki. - jms
Just because you don't know Chinese, that doesn't mean that the source is unreadable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you read it? If so, what does it say? If not: you're honestly defending sources you can't read or understand? Good work.

[edit] Deleted ALL images i uploaded

Im getting sick and tired of people deleting images i upload, when i say i've made them myself, please make an effort to READ the comments associated with them. I cant even COUNT how many images of my personal property were deleted off wikipedia, when they were clearly made by myself personally and released under the GFDL, it isnt 1 or 2, or 3..it's about 40 different images that I MADE. Zlatko 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to tag your images properly, and they won't be deleted. For more information, see Wikipedia:Image tagging. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Upon investigation, it appears that these images were copyright violations. Even if you scanned these images from a book, you don't own the copyright, and can't release them under the GFDL. You have to have created the original photographs yourself in order to do that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot problems with unicode characters?

Hi there!

Just spotted a couple of article creations from Polbot that seem to have problems with non-ascii characters in the title.

  • CÓBana Negra
  • CÓBana Polisandro is a redirect to the above that hasn't worked at all

Looks like it might have gotten confused trying to convert the name from the all caps CÓBANA NEGRA on the source page [1]?

Cheers! --Stormie 06:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Polbot has real problems with extended ASCII. Two problems, as you correctly found. One is that Perl's built-in lower-case functions don't convert Ó to ó. The other is that, within articles (not titles), any special character becomes an unprintable character. I'll see if I can fix that. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Then Polbot will have problems with that list of biographical articles. I specifically included articles with special characters to see how Polbot will handle this. Carcharoth 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've fixed the second problem (which I think is the only one which would affect Function #3). The first problem is still a bugger, though. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed all the obvious problems back to 02:48UTC today. Kevin 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I love the wiki. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I found a fix for the second problem! Now I just have to go back through and repair the articles I created. That'll take some time and some work. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow Rocketman

my photo that I own has been deleted from Canadian Arrow page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow Rocketman (talk • contribs)

Did you take this photo yourself? If not, who is the photographer? – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 presidential election map

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the maps for the other presidential election map years (1988, 1992, etc.) awhile back so that they would link directly to the Wikimedia version of the map. It appears that there is still one for 2000 though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png ...on Wikipedia (as opposed to linking directly to the Wikimedia version like all the others). Here is the 1992 one for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png As you can see, it links directly to the Commons one. Anyway, I don't have the power to fix it, but since you had fixed the others I was going to see if you might be down for fixing that one too. Thanks mate, later. (Cardsplayer4life 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid I can't. The GFDL requires that the edit-history for an image be kept. There is a long edit history for the image you mentioned, with color-swapping and brightening, etc. All intermediate images and edit histories would have to uploaded to Commons before I can delete the Wikipedia version. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle Image Fair Use

You recently notified me that images of Bionicle characters made by Lego would have to be replaced with homemade photographs of sets. While I understand your concern; I believe that since such pictures would still depict characters that are under Lego's copyright, they would not be viable as non-free alternatives. Drakhan 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that any new photograph of Bionicle figurines would be a derivative work of Lego's creations, and we would have to claim "fair use" for the use of the underlying characters. However, we would not have to claim fair use on the photographs themselves -- the photographs would be available under a free license. It's the difference between making one fair use claim (character-only) or two (character and photograph). One of those uses is replaceable. Even though we can't help but make use of Lego's copyright on the image, we don't have to use Lego's copyrighted photographs. So that's an unnecessary use of non-free material. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I know that Wikipedia also strives to be extremely professional, and believe that any homemade pictures would be far below acceptable standards of professionalism and quality. The other option, no pictures at all, is hardly preferable. As any pictures used must be non-free regardless, I feel I must insist on the professional pictures. Drakhan 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] polbot run

I'm a little unhappy with some of the consequences of last night's extensive run of polbot--it really messed up new page patrol. Just a comment. 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Wait, so I get authorization to run a bot, and I run it, and I create thousands of new and useful articles. . . and you're unhappy because it fills up your new page patrol? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ON the contrary I am extremely!!!!! impressed by the bot. How on earth does it do it??? I logged in expecting 1,872,000 articles and I see 1,877,000+ -remarkable -don;t worry I too have had complaints about "clogging up the new pages" with new German municipality stubs. -Silly isn't it. You contribute significantly and all you get is complaints -never a hearty congratulations. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its quite phenonomal!!! You'll have to tell me the secret later - but I won't stop you in your run until you have finished!!!!! It would be superb if it covered birds and insects too!!!! It would save all of us several years work!! Great!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm blushing. I'll tell you the secret, but it's in code. Perl source code, to be exact. If you know Perl, the program code is here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] running the bot

why are you doing a large run on the ICUN redlist in the middle of the day? DGG (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to create articles for Wikipedia. I'm not creating articles at a pace faster than what was approved by community consensus at my request for bot approval. And it's always the middle of the day somewhere.
Why does it bother you to see so many new articles on plants and animals created? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Polbot improvements

A concern brought up was starting with plants of least concern. Can you make the bot start with species of most concern, at the higher end of the red list--there will also be more information available about these plants for augmenting articles in the future, in addition to it being more important to have their articles.

Also can the bot add links from this list,[2] (in the taxobox botanical authorities only) such as linking Friedrich Anton Wilhelm Miquel to his botanical author abbreviation Miq.? I realize this would require rewriting this line of code.

In addition plants have lightgreen taxoboxes, not pink.

We also tend to use the angiosperm family names ending in '-aceae,' rather than acceptable alternatives. It should be Fabaceae, not Leguminosae.

Looks good, though. KP Botany 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, these are the 8 plant families with alternative names, please use the second name in each case, the one with the '-aceae' ending, should the plant be listed under the first name:

KP Botany 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is some great feedback! I'm always looking for ways to improve Polbot. I'll address your suggestions one by one.
  1. As for starting with species of highest concern, I'm afraid I have to process them family by family. So I can't really do the most important species first. Don't worry though; I will get to all the species on the Red List.
  2. The list of botanist abbreviations is great! Is there one for zoologists as well? I wish I'd known about this sooner. I'll change the code to use this.
  3. I can't believe I messed up the taxobox color! I'll definitely fix that.
  4. I've been just using whatever taxonomic names the Red List uses. I can translate those families, no problem.
If you have any other suggestions for improvement, however minor, please let me know! All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Zoologists don't standarize author abbreviations, only botanists do, and we have only a partial list on Wikipedia.

Family by family is fine, then. You might start with some of the basal families, as they are smaller groups, but I don't think that's really necessary. You might also work within all the families in an order, as botanists today are re-examining higher level relationships, and one major reveiw on the order can be used to edit multiple articles if an editor chooses, making it convenient to have a lot of red list plants from the same order all done, so they can all be edited at once.

You might want to avoid Scrophulariaceae and related families for now, do the others first, then let us think about these for a moment before you do the articles. (The families in this order: Lamiales, but especially the Scrophulariaceae are in major upheaval. But I don't know your timing on running the bought. Let me think on this.)

I think this is fine so far. I'm not sure how it works, although I think you brought it up in discussion before, and everyone generally approved, so unless I think of something else....

Oh, do you generate a list of all the plant articles made?

an you put the plants banner on the talk page of the articles? I'm not sure if it is better to have a person do it, but really I don't see why.

Very convenient use of a bot. Thanks. KP Botany 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks again! I'll hold off on Scrophulariaceae for now. By the way, I could run a bot to recategorize taxonomic relationships when they change -- it'd be a lot simpler than changing 200 species articles by hand. I haven't been generating a list of the articles I have created, but perhaps I could start. I didn't know about the plant banner either. I'll start adding that. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, at some point we have some recategorizations to do in botany, and we would just rather it be done with a bot--but not really recategorizing, as botany's in about the boat genetics was in in the early 20th century, so we can't add all the new research. I would like to add sources for the taxonomies in the taxoboxes and one complaint I always get is the amount of work, it would be nice to defeat that in advance, but I still would have to discuss approaching you about it with other plant folks first, before I actually ask you to do it inorder to forestall future complaints. Sigh.
    • There are other sources of endangered species I would like you to do, also, when you get the time (California natives). But, again, I have to run it all by plants folks first. Again, nice job. I think if you add the banner the list may be generate for you--too bad you can't look at my watchlist, which might show wht the list is called. I see if I can find it in the next few days and show you where new plant articles are added if the banner is put up--or some way, I don't know how. KP Botany 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Tanya Tucker pic

Im actually glad you deleted that picture of Tanya Tucker, it was way back from 1997! But i think it does need a picture there, i have a few i would like to use, some very recent pics of her, im not sure how to put a picture up , do you think you could help?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckertough (talk • contribs)

Do you have any photographs of her that you've taken yourself? I'm afraid we can't use a non-free picture of her on Wikipedia, and most images you'll find on the web are non-free. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destructive deletion

(large image removed) You deleted an image, Image:Almstilhs052030.jpg, even though I explained that there is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate. e have fair use policies and guidelines on Wikipedia.

  1. The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
  2. The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
  3. The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

You posted a boilerplate, bullying statement about "replaceability," even though I already covered that issue. Wikipedia is not a place to bully people over "libre content" ideology. Either restore the image immediately or face arbitration or further action. 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquera (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am confident that my deletion was correct and in line with Wikipedia policies. If you feel I was out of line, you are free to report my actions to WP:AN/I, or else file an WP:RFC about the matter. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate. Again, you insist on using standard libre-content bullying tactics. You have neither consensus nor evidence that I did anything wrong. You cannot cite your own opinions, which are simple because-I-said-so boilerplate, as consensus. Apologize and retract. The standard excuses don't work with me. Mosquera 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not interested in discussing this with you further. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That only shows your uncivil manner. I tried. You refuse to answer because you know you were in the wrong. I repeat, you cannot cite your own opinions as consensus. Respect policy. Mosquera 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you now are threatening my posting privileges. You seem to be bullying me again -- and perhaps trying to drive me from the site in order to prevent me from taking procedural action against you. Respect policy. Mosquera 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I expected, you are bullying me further. You are now wikistalking me by digging through my past posts. You seek to win an argument by force when you get nowhere by reason. Do not stalk me. Mosquera 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration? Mosquera 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that's warranted, I can't stop you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not stalk me.' You seem to be utterly unapologetic and unable gto discuss the issues. You simply insist on endlessly tossing boilerplate text at me. I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit here and you harass me, as you apparently have done to dozens of others. That you try to drive me from the site in order to prevent me from taking procedural action against you makes things even worse for you.Mosquera 04:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

(large image removed) You have posted numerous bogus "dispute" tags to my contributions. I asumme you have not read the 10,000+ character rationales I attached to each of them. Do not abuse Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Your actions are against the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Stop now. Mosquera 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosquera, I examined several of the images under dispute. I am impressed with your lengthy rationales. I, however, have one question: Are the images of living individuals living public lives (i.e. not reclusive like, say, J. D. Salinger)? --Iamunknown 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You will claim that if the person is not hiding in a spider hole in Inner Mongolia, then a fair use photo gets deleted. Let's spare ourselves this worn-out ritual. They are non-replaceable images. Period. That they are "portraits of living people" is not sufficient grounds for replaceability, nor does it give an administer carte blanche to harass me.

This image is properly used under current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" images ever become available, they may be uploaded as replacements. Such an event is highly unlikely in the next twenty years, even if it were somehow in theory possible, given the intellectual property issues involved.

The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil. Mosquera 07:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They are replaceable images. Period. You or I could walk up to the individual and take a photograph, or could find a photograph on Flickr, or could ask the individual if they have a picture they would freely license. The image is not properly used under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:Non-free content specifically disallows non-free images of living people except under exceptional circumstances. These images do not have a valid fair use rationale. Also, please do not add any more 100px-sized stop sign-messages. We can discuss this with text. --Iamunknown 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iamunknown, did you just blank another user's comments? Badagnani 07:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If by "blank" you meant to ask, "Did you remove a comment", yes, I removed Mosquera's additional comment when I replied to his reply. --Iamunknown 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The only policy that matters to libre content zealots is what gives them cover for vandalism and harassment. When I'm being stalked, I will defend myself by any means necessary. I followed policy and explained it at length. Saying "replaceable" over and over proves nothing. "Replaceable" is a meaningless, undefined word. The law never heard of it. Mosquera 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of non-free content is proscribed by Wikipedia:Non-free content which, admittedly, is a narrow interpretation of United States copyright law. In particular, the first criterion used to determine if the use of particular non-free content is acceptable on Wikipedia starts, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is regularly accepted to mean that non-free images of living persons used solely to identify such persons are not acceptable. This image was used solely to identify this person. Its use was not acceptable, so it was deleted. No amount of commentary is going to change that. I suggest you spend energy that would be spent here to look for free images; you could start by examining Flickr, or by contacting the copyright holders of non-free images. --Iamunknown 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the image is replaceable, the burden of proof is on you. Find the replacement. A hint: many of these people don't speak English. Go find them. I'm serious. I answered the boilerplate arguments once and will not bore you by answering them again. Do not remove my comments, either, regardless of whether you like them. Mosquera 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, the burden of proof that non-free content is absolutely necessary lies upon you. Your fair use rationales do not address this; nor could it be adequately addressed. Quite simply, this image is of a living person used solely to identify the person, a free image could be made that would adequately serve the same encyclopedic purpose and, as such, any non-free image is unacceptable. --Iamunknown 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Wikistalking: Please Stop!!!!

(large image removed) Quadell, please do not try to carry your wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I ask that you apologize immediately and try to undo your destructive actions. M.

[edit] Page Burgos Ilocos Norte

Sir I saw that my images of thelighthouse and the lamps were deleted from this page. Why was this? I have the copyright to these images as I made them. Did I use wrong categories when uploading the images? Thanks for the expalanation Herman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrijverh (talk • contribs)

Did you actually delete photos that this editor took himself? To a new editor? Without a note on his discussion page? Are you not concerned about driving away editors from our project? This is getting worse all the time. I ask that you please modify your behavior in this regard. We should work together with new editors, not summarily delete without making communication with them and helping them to use the correct templates. Badagnani 07:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, Schrijverh's images were marked "own work" in the upload edit summaries, though not on the image page itself. Newcomer somehow went through the upload forms forgetting to pick the dropdown box, but the "own work" assertion seems entirely plausible (and, I'd say, implies intention of GFDL release.) You wouldn't mind me undeleting those, right? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the GFDL assertion unfortunately doesn't apply anymore, seeing as how we have multiple image copyright tags. But the uploader's assertion that the images are his/her own work is entirely plausible. Schrijverh, would you be willing to freely license your three images? --Iamunknown 08:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've asked him that on his own talkpage too, but in such cases I'm all in favour of ignoring bureaucracy in favour of undeleting quickly to meet the uploader's intentions. If he prefers a different licensing mode, he can still change it afterwards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring those images, Fut.Perf. I always restore images and help tag them when the uploader informs me they are freely licensed after all. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All Thanks for the response. These were indeed my first images I uploaded and probably I did something wrong. Yes I do give all my rights up. I want to share this magnificent piece of Philippine history with others. Can you tell me how your discussion forums work? I could not find a "reply"function so decided to use the edit function. Is this OK? Schrijverh

Yes, that's exactly right. You're getting the hang of it! :-) Check out Help:Contents for more tips and tricks on getting around. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot

Shouldn't flowers have a light green taxobox? [3] Punkmorten 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. That's a bug. Another editor pointed it out to me, and I've fixed it. I'll try to have the bot go back through and correct those. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Polbot

Polbot's comment header on disambiguations ends with "(All dab entries should begin with a link, and should not contain any other links.)". That's not true. These are also within-guidelines disambiguation entries:

  • Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices
  • Flibbygibby, a type of noodle

See WP:MOSDAB. Could you update the comment text? "All dab entries should have exactly one blue link, at the start of the line if it is the topic of the linked article." would be true. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 11:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify this, links elsewhere in the dab entry are good if the entry is a redlink. Once it turns blue, the links elsewhere in the entry should be removed. The ones that are dicdefs or shouldn't have articles, may become redirects, but again, need some sort of link for readers to follow. Again, if they turn blue, or an article is created, the links elsewhere in the entry (here, cornice and noodle) would be removed, as readers would be expected to follow the Flibbygibby links instead. Carcharoth 11:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, if MoS guidelines change in the future, who will clean up all these guidelines that Polbot is embedding into the pages? I would suggest linking to the MoS in the edit summary, and mentioning the MoS in the comments, but no more. Carcharoth 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Polbot has only run a trial run of 50 edits on this function. Even though this function was approved by the Bot Approvals Group, I have put off running this because of concerns like the ones you two raise here. If I do run it in the future, it will be substantially modified to give more accurate messages and look for more exceptions. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another Polbot Comment

I noticed Polbot has been creating a lot of articles from IUCN. I have couple minor points

There are more similar cases, but really Polbot is doing suprisingly good job parsing through IUCN and generating these stubs. It's a clever bot! – Sadalmelik 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback! I wasn't sure what to do about capitalization -- thanks for pointing me to the guideline. (I don't like the guideline, but at least now I know it.) I know it makes rds for French names, but I don't know which are common names in English and which aren't so I just leave them. And the capitalization of special characters is a pain. I wish I knew how to fix that bug! Thanks again, and I'll try to improve the bot as I go. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I went through some 60 or so birds today, and I changed the text in 5 or 6 of them. (3-4 times to remove French names, and twice to correct a broken link to US regions) Very impressive! Soon we humans are only good for vandalizing. Cheers, – Sadalmelik 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Polbot is blushing! Thanks for cleaning up after her messes -- I'll try to make them as infrequent as possible. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obtaining free images via WP:ERP

Quadell, I've created a user page (User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images) showing images I've been able to obtain in the past few days by using WP:ERP, along with some lessons I've learned. Feel free to point people here who say that obtaining freely-licensed images of celebrities is difficult or impossible. Note that so far I've got free images of at least one deceased person, two retired porn stars, and a band in their stage "persona". I'm learning as I go, but my success rate is improving. The most helpful statement to include in the request seems to be "Wikipedia is the 9th most-visited website in the world, and we will link back to your site from the image page". I'm willing to help out other people who are searching for free images.

I just started looking into the issue from last night with the replaceable images and the WP:ANI report - it looks like some other folks jumped in to help out with the images. Is this pretty much resolved or do you need another set of eyes on the issue? Videmus Omnia 14:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What a great page! Thanks for making this! I'll definitely show it to people. I think the ANI issue has died out -- I hope. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That's amazing, Videmus! --Iamunknown 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tell me what you think...

See the talk page of Masculinity and tell me what you think. The anon IP has removed the image again (without any summary mind you). Wikidudeman (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abu arbcom

Yeah, thanks a lot for your statement. I fully endorse it, of course. I guess I have already filled that page with quite enough comment of mine, and strongly worded too. It should be pretty obvious to the arbitrators by now where the opinions of image-experienced admins are on this case. I mean, we now have you, me, howcheng, Iamunknown, Carnildo, Garion96, BanyanTree, ElinorD, Mangojuice, Jkelly, hbdragon88, Borisblue, all voicing strong disagreement with Fred's proposals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm not sure if it was such a good idea to post your request to several people. Some onlookers are certain to shout "canvassing" again, and I guess the Arbs might not like the idea of being pressured. Perhaps it would have been better to post a notice on AN or somewhere. I certainly agree that, if these proposals aren't wiped off the table soon, people will have to be made aware of them on a wider basis, because if this passes it will have grave consequences on how efficiently image policies can be enforced in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be right. My intentions were good, but it might come across wrong. I have reverted myself on those users' talk pages. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As one who wasn't "canvassed", I'd like to say that I saw your comments, Quadell, and thoroughly agreed with them. I shall be posting on that page later today. ElinorD (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image help

So, what's the best way I can help out with the image backlog? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Boy, what a great question! :-) Well, first, read up on Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Non-free content. You seem to understand these policies pretty well, but you can never know too much about it. Then there are two basic routes you can take.
  • Tag images. Howcheng has made a great tool to help with this. Check out User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, and follow the instructions. Then, when you find an image that violates our policy, you can tag it and notify the uploader with the press of a button. You don't have to be an administrator to do this; anyone can get involved. Some great places to look for images that may be in violation are Special:Newimages and Category:Publicity photographs, although you can find such image anywhere.
Thanks for being willing to help with this! All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the great information. As an aside, do you know of a script or automated tool for removing images from articles once they're deleted? Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Mets501 runs MetsBot, which apparently does this. He's out of commission until August, however. I run a home-made perl script to do this for images I delete, and I could give you the code if you have a machine with Perl running. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The reasoning for my articles I have edited are explained in the discussion sections of the articles. Try taking a look there before you "warn" me. 170.140.6.250 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] But you're certainly right about one thing...

... there's not enough barnstars handed out for image cleanup! So here is one.

The Barnstar of Diligence
This barnstar is given to Quadell for unwavering determination coupled with patience and fairness in cleaning up images and dealing with ensuing conflicts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks! I hope I have fewer opportunities to earn those in the future, if you catch my drift. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Barnstars...

... after reading your page I'm trying to find the Barnstar of Exceptional Patience - you deserve it - twice. I also came by to ask if you could use any help in your image work? I'm fairly thick skinned (which seems to be the primary qualification) and know something about copyright and image policy - I can bone up on the limits a various licenses befor starting. I have too many nice thank you type messages on my talk page - time for some variety :) Need a hand? Cheers, Paxse 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was so busy reading the rant posts that I missed your detailed explanation about how to get started in image tagging a few posts above - consider my question answered - and get back to the images! ;) Cheers, Paxse 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You're awesome. Glad to have the help. Remember to be unceasingly polite -- I've had several cases where an offended and unrepentant user becomes converted through patient explanation and refraining from responding in kind. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

A few days ago, I requested via Flickr Mail that Jimbo contribute his photo of Rachel Sklar. I haven't heard back yet, but I thought it was ironic that Jimbo doesn't tag his Flickr photos as being under a free license. :) Videmus Omnia 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's terrible. I guess he doesn't like cc licenses (User:gmaxwell doesn't), and Flickr doesn't have a GFDL option. I hope he replies! – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
He has previously licensed Flickr photos under a free CC-license, so I think he probably will (if he notices the e-mail; I imagine he gets quite a few per day). --Iamunknown 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scibot?

I was thinking just now about how Polbot generates information on politicians from public domain websites, and was wondering if it could do the same for obscure historical scientists? This is what I had in mind. The problem is, it almost certainly isn't freely usable, but in principle would the same idea work? Carcharoth 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you could do it with just this information, "names, dates of birth, death and election to the Society?" Brilliant idea, Carcharoth. KP Botany 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a plausible use for Polbot. . . but I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment. Once I get Function #3 working the way we want it, and Function #6 working, I'll look at it and see how difficult this would be. Until then, I'll put it on my "back-burner queue". – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, I often think that some articles are best left as red-links for someone to take up a challenge and create a good article from scratch. Unless they have the feature turned on that shows them (by colour of link) which articles are stubs, people can think we already have an article on a particular person, instead of just a stub. Carcharoth 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!

Yes, I have a mild case of AS. This is based on a medical dignosis received by a very close family member and typical behavioral traits on my part. Guess what my latest obsession is? (Hint: It starts with a W.) Thanks for your support, and please let me know if I'm fouling things up! -- But|seriously|folks  02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm betting it rhymes with "Shmikipedia" too. ;-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot and taxonomic categories

I notice your bot's been creating more articles on assorted organisms than one can shake the proverbial stick up -- rats and mice especially. As you're adding classification data in infoboxes, wouldn't it be possible to add taxon categories at the same time? This would be useful (among other things) for re-sorting the corresponding stub tags... Alai 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly possible. I'm retuning the bot before I run her again, and I'll be going back and retro-fixing the articles she made. So I'm looking for possible improvements. But I need more info: how do I know what taxon categories to add? For the Vesper bats, I see there is a Category:Vesper bats, and a user has been helpfully adding this to the new articles. But not all families have categories, do they? It looks like Murinae has Category:Old World rats and mice. Is there a list somewhere of biological families and corresponding categories? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a tad hit and miss, it must be said: sometimes they exist, sometimes they don't; sometimes they use the scientific name, other times some ad hoc alleged common name. Where they're simply missing, creating the category page would seem like a pretty safe bet (give or take naming and variant taxonomical issues). I'm not aware of a consolidated list: if it'd help, I could have a go at generating one from the dump of the category hierarchy... Alai 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah!

Great picture, thanks! Videmus Omnia 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added a fair use rationale to Image:AmeriCaresLogo.jpg

I added a fair use rationale to Image:AmeriCaresLogo.jpg. The original uploader provided copyright information, which I retained. However, using a logo in an article about the owner of the logo is a valid fair use. --Eastmain 07:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Thanks for fixing that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GID logo.jpg

Hi. I might not have tagged this image correctly, but I don't think there are any problems publishing it. The OECD is an international organisation and its products generally available publicly. The logo of the OECD, for example, is also featured on wikipedia. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulwofer (talk • contribs)

Yes, hello. The image was deleted because it was tagged as "non-commercial use only". We can use the image under a "fair use" claim, but you'll need to add a fair-use rationale. Some information on how to do this is at User:Ilse@/fairuse. I have restored the image, but it's tagged as not having a rationale. If there's still no rationale by Thursday, July 19, the image will be deleted again, but if you add a rationale by then it won't be deleted. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Polbot creating animal pages

When User:Polbot creates pages on animals, can it please give them permenant categories (non-stub) based on their taxonomy? I see it has no trouble finding the right stub category. Od Mishehu 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to manually tell it what stub category to use. I'm not sure how to tell the right category for a given species. Any pointers you can give me would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cisco Images that were tagged

I have contacted the VP of marketing at Cisco and hopefully, if not on vacation, she will send me permission to use these photos on wiki and 3rd party copies and this should close the case, correct? I noticed this is how you have done it with photos you have uploaded. Please correct me if this is not the proper procedure.

Thanks!

--akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's great! Yes, if the copyright-holder gives anyone permission to use the images (including modification and commercial use), then the image is a "free image" and we can use it with no problems. Thanks for asking for permission to use it! If you get an e-mail giving you permission, just e-mail it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. (They will officially verify that permission was granted, and then no one can complain.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoological authorities

Looking at some of the comments above, it seems that there is no standardized list for zoological authors for wikilinking. Nevertheless at least some of the authorities in existing articles have been linked by a bot - namely by Gdrbot. The relevant source seems to be this: User:Gdr/authority.py. Of course, that's python, and Polbot seems to be perl, but perhaps there is something usefull there. I did add correct wikilinks as I went through the articles I was checking, but it's sort of a boring job :) Perhaps Gdrbot might be able to help with this, either by strolling after Polbot or lending a metallic arm to help it... – Sadalmelik 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! Looking through the Python code, I found List of zoologists by author abbreviation. Aha! These tips are really helping to make the function better. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

However, zoologists don't usually cite taxonomic names with abbreviations. The abbreviations for botanists are standardized, but in zoology, the author's name is usually spelled out in full, with the date, when given authorities. KP Botany 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm a physist and know little about zoology (or botany for the matter). It seems that IUCN always gives the authority as e.g. Lesson, 1841. Wikilinking Lesson directly goes to somewhere inappropriate. This rather miss-named List of zoologists by author abbreviation gives the full name for Lesson as René-Primevère Lesson which is the correct person, the French naturalist. I'm completely wrong man to comment on whether the list is entirely reliable, though. – Sadalmelik 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question: Is a (self-produced) poster replaceable?

First of all, thank you Quadell. You seem to be making a great job as an administrator.

Here is my question: The picture I - yes - copied from another website is a self-produced poster of a person distributed for promotional purposes by intent. In other words it is not simply a picture, but an image enhanced by words and effects. Therefore it is not really replaceable or to be more precise the concept of replaceability as associated with a living person is not relevant here(Assume that I take the picture of the poster.). The image should, I believe, be treated like film posters or comic book covers. I might still be in fault of course (Isn't that what's good about Wikipedia?). Evren Güldoğan 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The original debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Sahin2.jpg

Greetings. Thanks for your kind words. The image you mention is clearly promotional, and it is enhanced by words and a colorful background. However the article on the person does not need an image with words on it. (In fact, it's better to have a picture without words, for Wikipedia's purposes.) "Replaceable" means that another picture could be made that would give the same encyclopedic information, and any photo of the person would give the same encyclopedic information (even if it wouldn't have the same effects).
You're right that the image should be treated like a film poster or a comic book cover. But we can't use a film poster to show what an actor looks like. That violates NFCC #1, even though the specific poster can't be repeated, because it's being used to show what the actor looks like, and any photo of the actor would serve the same purpose. I hope this explains well. Thanks again for being civil. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I thought you'd like to know

Just a note that should make your day. Your obsession over deleting images of a man dead over 70 years, in a country that has twice been devasted by war during that time, for a purported concern over copyright issues has finally made me decide to leave Wikipedia. Another contributor gone. Now give yourself a barnstar, or whatever it is you guys do. Rizzleboffin 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go. I hope you decide to return. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DSC08955.JPG

Description on Image:The_original_Winnie_the_Pooh_toys.jpg says "Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DSC08955.JPG (800x600 version of the original 2048x1536 one)". Unfortunately the original high res version appears to have been deleted. Please undelete it to allow me to move it to Commons. -N 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted it, at your request. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion requested

Could we get your input on this and the spillover discussion at my Talk page and WilyD's? The issue is the copyright and fair use claims on reproductions of public domain logos. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I commented there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your advice on copyvio

Thanks for your advice on the copyvio problem over on Oktay Rifat. Much appreciated! QuietWikipedian 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pond Creek Image

Just hoping you won't delete the image I placed under the famous citizens section in the Pond Creek article. I was trying to help inform the public. --Austinprickett 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate that you would want to help inform the public, and I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we can only use non-free images in a very limited set of circumstances, as described in our non-free content policy. If you upload pictures you created yourself, there shouldn't be any problems. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I created the image. I probably just messed up when I was uploading and said I didn't or something. Or I'm just stupid and confused. Either or. --Austinprickett 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NewSnellvilleCityHall.JPG

Since this work was done by a government body and released for promotional use unconditionally, does it still need to be replaced? Jober14 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no proof they have done so. It is equally likely they released it for re-publication only, with no right of re-sale or derivative works. -N 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What if the Mayor himself gave me the picture with his permission to use the picture however I wanted? How do I prove that? Have him sign a affidavit? Jober14 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Just have him send you an e-mail, saying that he gives anyone permission to use the image, even for profit, and that modifications are also allowed. Then forward this e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)