User talk:RG2/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoary RFA Thanks

Image:1000000eme.jpg
Another newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello RG2: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenn Sterger photo listed for deletion

It would appear from previous posts that you're all too anxious to delete contributions from other people on Wikipedia. Some complaints sound well founded.

Noles1984 doesn't like over zealous Wikipedia Cops deleting articles and contributions prematurely.

Further, you should explain why you believe certain things are candidates for deletion on the discussion page or contributor's talk/user page. Quite frankly, I do not think you're administrative material but that's just my POV and I expect that I will be watched more closely because of my dissent. It's all too easy to get an authoritarian head as a recent Wiki cop. You're young. Just be careful in your candidates for deletion. 35px|USA Noles1984 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you got the image from http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060207/NEWS01/602070331/1010, which, as it seems, would be a copyright violation. It's the uploader's burden to somehow show that the image is free, because there's been no evidence otherwise. Thanks. I did explain, if you bothered to follow the link to the images for deletion page. — RG2 talk 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that galleries of images I've taken are explicity permitted under Wikipedia:User page. Your nomination is also a violation of WP:POINT, as there is obvious evidence that you have something against me. My nominations of your images for deletion have all been valid and were explained in the correct channels. Your pointlessly hostile response gave me no reason to go out of my way to help you, as I normally would. If you would like to apologize, I would in turn be happy to further explain copyright law and Wikipedia image use. Thanks. — RG2 talk 16:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I have nothing against you. I thought I would look at what would possibly considered a vanity page. Afterall, who watches the administrators? Question: How far can one go on user pages in the realm of self promotion and entertainment? (I'm sincerely asking). Anyway, your nominations were valid though again I would have liked a better explanation on my talk/discussion page. Seems less automated and more personal. I really don't need an explanation of copyright law and understand the image use. About the afore mentioned authoritarianism. That may be prevelent in Wikipedia but your further replys show that you are not. Thanks for your assistance, Rdude, you're OK. --- Noles1984 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof

Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! I've added you to the list of authorized users, and I will do my best to notify you once a download becomes available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kusma's RfA

Hello, RG2! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Download Is Now Available

I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, RG2/archive2!
Thank you! ...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

 Thank you!
Hello RG2/archive2. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Application

Nice work on regional applications for the patent application page.--Nowa 11:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace and AWB

Regarding [1], see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#standard_and_consistent_internal_formatting. If we can't agree on a single whitespace style, we shouldn't be changing it with scripts/tools, or we'll just be counteracting each other's work. — Omegatron 13:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)SUPER THANKS TO YOU FOR ALL THE FAC HELP!

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note

Dear RG2, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks, Brooks & Dunn, and VandalProof

I see that you used VandalProof to rvv Brooks & Dunn, but what happened was the edit got copied into Brooks by mistake. I suspect that VandalProof choked on the ampersand. If you concur, would you please notify the developer? Thanks! — Shadowhillway 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I'll report it to AmiDaniel; thanks for the heads up! — RG2 talk 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's already been reported, actually; the next version of VandalProof will revert vandalism like this correctly. — RG2 talk 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weirdy's User page

Thanks for protecting my user page from that IP address. Weirdy 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC) The 2nd Weirdy?

Texas!!! [2] Johntex\talk 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RG2 I wanted you to see that I did apologize to him.

8 Another reply to "zip it"

You wrote: Here is some more filth. You attacked me by claiming I did something I did not do. That is not my IP address that reverted the Tennessee article and you are not my friend. I never said it was. the "you" I wrote about in the history was to the IP below me. Please see related article: Egotism (assuming the world revolves around YOU) Thank you. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it sounded like you were attacking me and I did not appreciate it. I will apologize for my quick and fiery temper. I think I'm owed an apology from you P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC as well. --Bookofsecrets 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bookofsecrets"

Apology

  • I wish to extend to you an apology for a fiery temper and the personal attacks. I would like to hear an apology from you too. Why? I think you did some personal attacking of your own today. --Bookofsecrets 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's great to see you two have leveled with each other and I hope you two can collaborate productively in the future. You don't have to leave a copy of everything on my talk page though; I'm still lurking around everywhere. Thanks. — RG2 talk 00:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great voice

I finally got around to installing an OGG player and listening to

Image:Hook 'em Horns.ogg

. Great job! Your reading voice is right up there with Walter Cronkite. Johntex\talk 03:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Planets

I need some help dude, there is a this game that I play that deserves an article and it seems these delete happy jackasses keep deleting the page that I am creating. So, I was wondering if you could help me create this page and stop them from being mean. BIG Tuna 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgotten Planets. Thank you. Chick Bowen 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WTH, are you like following me around, trying to be Mr. Fix It? Cuz i think you just proved my statment to be true...Just take out the word delete and you have 2 other words that describe you perfectly. BIG Tuna 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Well whats wrong with caps.. Fix this if you so want to get rid of all caps. Category:Laboratory_High_Schools

Asfandyar

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. — RG2 talk 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] North-West Frontier Province or NWFP

I think North-West Frontier Province, should be replaced with NWFP, its widely known acronym. If you agree, can you do that with AWB.

Here is the main category page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North-West_Frontier_Province

to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NWFP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asfandyar (talk • contribs) .

Though we don't always do so for various reasons, Wikipedia generally prefers the unabbreviated name for a category. As a result, while moving NWFP to North-West Frontier Province would qualify for a speedy renaming, moving North-West Frontier Province to NWFP would require you to bring it up at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. — RG2 talk 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Can you revert back from NWFP to North-West Frontier Province using AWB? Asfandyar


[edit] MB Sash

Thanks! Very ingeneous too! YIS, Randy, Rlevse 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki admin

Have you ever thought of becoming a Wiki admin? I think you'd make a good one. Rlevse 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not too much – though I've lost count of how many times I've been mistaken for one. ;) — RG2 talk 20:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA to FA

Eagle Scout rank (Boy Scouts of America) was made a Good Article. Do you think it has FA potential? Rlevse 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is well-cited is certainly a good thing, I don't think it's a very well-written article at all. The main problem is that the text is extremely choppy. There's really not that much content in there; we should expand the article so that it's comprehensive (we should expand the history, perhaps add more data about how to obtain the rank, add a section about the Eagle Scout rank and how it relates to how it's perceived by the public, in pop culture, in history, etc.), and rewrite it so it's not just a long list. Certainly, we'll list the requirements, but it seems like half the article is a list of "Awards similar to Eagle Scout" and "See also"s. — RG2 talk 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree totally. I'm willing to work with it. I'll let other project members know. -- Rlevse 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to copy some of this analysis to the talk page. --evrik 21:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Image:One-hundred-WikiThanks.gif Thank you, RG2, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
♫Bucketsofg♪

[edit] punon link

in punon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punon&oldid=51025352 the external link does not go there can you check it? thanks uri —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urij (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure. The link is fine on Wikipedia's end, but the site you're linking to redirects elsewhere. You're doing the linking correctly, but it a problem with the other website. — RG2 talk 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Robinow syndrome, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 18:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EWS23's RfA

Hi RG2! Thank you very much for supporting my request for adminship. It's always great to see a fellow Longhorn on the project, and I'm sure I'll continue to run into you in the months to come. :o) Thanks again, and feel free to leave me a message if you ever see something I could be doing better. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Scout Peer Review

I listed the Eagle Scout article for a formal peer review a few moments ago in the hope in about 2 weeks to list it as a FAC. Based on my experience with other FACs and one of my own successful FAs, I think there are two things people may object to: a) is the lead long enough? and b) are there too many lists? Please think these issues over. Thanks for all the help, Randy. YIS, Rlevse 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. :) -- Shizane talkcontribs 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You all bored or what?

You and Crazynas just bored or just don't bother reading before reverting? 65.4.253.65 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Notification

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with user:Staxringold who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold 2. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting Barnstar award

The Scouting Barnstar - A hearty thank you for your long and hard work on high quality copyediting of Scouting articles, being a key in our first Featured Article, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), and in dealing with the admin side of Wiki. Keep up the fine work! Rlevse 2:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics Question

Rguy, Shouldn't there be a limit on graphics as far as physical size or even bytes? I've run across a file that are for no purpose other than a userbox but was 1000 x 1000+, I've run across files that could drop in color value from 256 to 16 saving Wikipedia a lot of space. Are there no guidelines? Noles1984 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's your prediction?

Will Colt McCoy be the starter for the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team? Johntex\talk 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed Vandal

Thanks for rv'ing the vandal on my user page. He was pissed because I found his vandalism of an article in 2 minutes, but he's wondering how--I guess he doesn't know about the RC patrol, VandalProof, etc. Also, let me know when you're done with the Eagle article, I'm also not sure what to do with the patch and medal section. Rlevse 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your AWB seems to be misconfigured

You removed the sortkeys from the categories in this article. --SPUI (T - C) 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meetups, events, &c.

Hiya R,

There's currently some discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. I'm notifying people who have been involved in local meetups; if you are interested, see the mailing-list and meta-page on the topic. Cheers, +sj + 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texan Collaboration of the month

Image:Texasflaginstate.png Texas needs your help!!

The good news is the most recent Texan Collaboration of the Month - Juneteenth has recently been featured on the Main Page! The bad news is that we chose this article six months ago and we haven't kept up to date with choosing and improving a new article.
This page is traditionally administered by Katefan0 and JCarriker, but since they are both semi-retired, Johntex is filling in. (Yet another reason to hope Katefan0 and JCarriker come back soon!!)
We are going to pick up right where we left off. Please visit Texan Collaboration of the Month and help select the new collaboration - we'll begin working on the selected article 1 July 2006.

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Angelicak.jpg)

Hi, I uploaded that image and linked it to an article but another user thought it isn't fair use in his opinion, removed the link and so the image became orphaned. Therefore it's clear that the image should be deleted. I'm, however, not sure now if just waiting until the orphaned image is deleted after seven days is the correct way or if I maybe should have put a speedy deletion tag on it myself or if that should have been done by the user who removed the link and made it an orphan? Just want to know what's best in case I come across another situation like this. Thanks. Optimale Gu 09:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

meatpuppett vote stacking by ZzzzzSpecial:Contributions/Zzzzz. Rlevse 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar: RfC on Gibnews

Hello, Burgas00 has opened a RfC on Gibnews. Please check it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FGibnews

--Panchurret 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why have you protected the Michael Jackson page?

So far as I can tell, it is not being vandelised.--Crestville 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cheers.--Crestville 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael jackson image

you conveniently overlooked the box that read:

This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. yet wasted not time adding that template and sending me a private message about it. Drmagic 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


understood. i didn't know the tag is often misued. i've reverted my edit. there are better pics of recent MJ than that one though. ah well. i'm out of the whole debate now. Drmagic 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotected

Is there any reason in particular you Sprotected the Alzheimers page? There hasn't been much vandalism on it in the last week -Ravedave 22:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't protect the page; I just added the notice. The page was protected at 21:48 on 1 July 2006 by User:Jaranda. His reasoning was, "General Tojo sock attack." I don't know what this is referring to, but it is customary to leave the semi-protection notice up there until the issue is resolved. — RG2 talk 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
How can a non admin tell if a page is sprotected without the tag? -Ravedave 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Oak

Thanks for adding the ((sprotect)) tag at Armenian Oak - it's the first time I've had to protect a page so am not too familiar with the full proceedure! - MPF 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Ya I know, but having it at the top of the article makes it ugly. And as not everyone that views the article is going to edit it, I removed it. But hey, doesn't really bother me if it's there.--Andeh 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So annoying - why did you delete my graphic?

re: Image Tagging Image:Four Modes of Supply.JPG

Sir - unlike you, I don't spend all day on Wikipedia. I didn't even go back to this site until some guy had deleted the graphic I added on the page for FATS. I created the graphic, and published it elsewhere, hence it is copyrighted, by me, and I give myself permission to post it here. It was cited accurately, and I don't know what else I can do than that. Taking down my graphics, which were correctly cited is just an annoyance. Please stop that. --RTV-Right to Vanish 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting awards

See the project page for new award info, I turned your sash design into a Scouting Tireless Contributor award. PS, aren't you an admin now? Rlevse 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Request

Image:54240.jpg was removed from the article by me, as a new image has replaced it. So it is orphaned and will remain that way. If you wish, you may delete it without waiting 7 days as it has no use. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los Barrios

Well, you were right about Los Barrios, unfortunately... -- ChrisO 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

Every do any work at Wikiquote? diff1, diff2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) .

I actually don't have an account there, yet. Any input I make there, I'm sure, would be met with cries of sockpuppetry through new accounts by Johntex. ;) — RG2 talk 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Roy Masters

Just to let you know, adding {{sprotected}} or {{protected}} to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article such as the notice you placed on Roy Masters. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin. Thanks! -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I slapped the {{sprotected}} on about a dozen and half articles in a row that day – Roy Masters was the last one, so I must have lost track and accidentally hit an open Firefox tab at the end. Thanks for the notice. — RG2 talk 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, do please ignore that. I was removing protection tags from unprotected articles and lost track of who this would be news to. And it was news to a few. But clearly not you, because you were fixing the same thing too. Keep up the good work! -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks of the People's Liberation Army

Ok, I give.  :) The last edit is when I did a rollback almost 10 days ago. Why the sprotect? Wikibofh(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I give, why am I an idiot?  :) I see I had it protected. It should be able to be unprotected, and I will do so.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14th Dublin

I've rewritten the articles 13th Dublin, 14th Dublin and Scouting in Rathfarnham in a way that (I hope) all of us can live with.Jorgenpfhartogs 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College logo controversy

RG2... User:Ed g2s seems to have gone on a unilateral rampage and removed college logos from conference pages (yes the Big XII) causing much strife. We need a consensus on this from you as well as other administrators as soon as possible. Thanks, 25px Noles1984 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College logo controversy (part II)

RG2 wrote: "You're going to need to take the FSU logo, (..) out of your signature, as we never put fair use images on pages out of the main namespace." OK, got. As I told User:Johntex, I'll do that today. RG2 further wrote: "This rule is well-clarified in written polices and guidelines. If you leave it in, not only will it break our fair use policy, but it's going to mean more work for others to remove all of said images at a later date." Good as done. "Coach Mack, a proven FSU success for UT" Noles1984 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rguys, correct me if I'm wrong, but as the FSU image is a governmental picture, it's not fair use: It's public domain--governmental. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Swat, it is true the fact that works of US government employees made as part of their official duties are in the public domain. (Please see Work of the United States Government) However, I don't think this is a work of the US govt, is it? The law saying that US govt works are in the public domain is not binding upon other governments, not even the US states. I don't know who owns that logo - if it is the State of Florida, the Seminole nation, or some other entity. Whether or not it is in the public domain depends on who does own the image, and upon what the laws are relating to that entity. What I do know is that Image:Florida State Combo Logo.png is tagged as a copyrighted image. So, it is either mistagged, or it is copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then it can't be used on a talk page, and that includes a modified version of it. Johntex\talk 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The logo is owned by the Florida State University, which is a state governmental organization. It's approved by the ACC and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, but it's owned by FSU, and thus by the state of florida's board of education. Therefore, as I understand it, it would merely be mistagged, rather than copyrighted. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I don't care much either way. But I go to FSU, and that logo is freely used all over Tallahassee. Companies I've worked for have used the image at least twice, on letterhead and business cards. It's pretty common to see up there, and I've never once seen a copyright logo around it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I found some discussion on the question of Florida law here on Wikipedia. Basically, it looks like the default for works by the Florida govt is that they are in the public domain, but the legislature can specifically declare something *not* to be in the public domain. We even have a template: {{PD-FLGov}}. What's weird is that our version has the (r) copyright symbol in the image, if you look closely. Johntex\talk 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like that solves it then? it'd be {{PD-FLGov}} unless someone can find some legislation showing that it's not. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my orphaned images

If you'd like, go ahead and speedy delete all four of those--they were replaced by different, later versions on each article (and unfortunately I couldn't find a good place for it in the case of the program flyer one after it's upload). rootology (T) 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned images

The three images you listed on my talk page are no longer being used and can be deleted. Dmoon1 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for help against deletionist

Brother, Randy says you can help me on this-this guy really wants to delete my recent additions for illustration-Image:LaszlonagyU.jpg‎, Image:Laszlonagycarlgusta.jpg‎; and Image:BoyScoutsofNippon.jpg, please help me save them from him. I hate having to do this all the time. Chris 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand. Can you help me find _better_ tags for them, so that Wikipedia is satisfied and the images can stay? Thanks. Chris 23:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilwell Park

Hi again. Could you give another copyedit to this? It's near the bottom of the FAC nom list and not much time is left. A lot has been done to it and I feel it needs a good copyeditor like you again. I'm not sure what its fate will be. Rlevse 02:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silken Windhound

Why do you think this needs a history merge rather than a simple redirect to finish the merge (the text is merged already right?) - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting FAC

The Scouting FAC is getting beat up on copyedit quality. Since you're way better at this than I am, could you look it over? I would truly appreciate it. Rlevse 14:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Having problems with User:Chowbok

A problem has developed over an image at StarMetro where I've uploaded a screenshot of a bus and documented it as such. Chowbak insists that it is not to be used because a photo should be obtained by camera. Please way in and see discussion at Image talk:Star Metro01.jpg Thanks. Noles1984 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar

Although you are correct in deleting the comments from the banned user (TBU), the comment he posted on the talk page in response to the racist rant by user:Onofre Bouvila is appropriate so I have re-instated. I have also politely asked the author to remove his Expletive_deleted ill informed rubbish.

Whats the procedure for complaining about this sort of abuse should he not?

Up put with it, I shall not, to quote Winston.

Given the constant resurrection of the fallacious article on 'Spanish Gibraltarians' I intend to urge some more Gibraltarians to take an interest in Wikipedia, so should you see new users in this IP range take care not to automatically assume they are socks of TBU and be nice and understanding to newbies who may be valuable contributors one day.

--Gibnews 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Onofre Bouvila's comment was derogatory and inflammatory rhetoric, rather than a fair and balanced request to improve the article, I don't think there's a need to keep any of it. I reverted Gibraltarian's response due to Wikipedia's banning policy. However, I don't see the point of your response. You're spending time arguing against a pointless attack from someone who's probably not even going to listen. Why don't we just blank the whole, largely irrelevant thread?
Calling his comments "fascist nonsense" isn't going to help, either. Even if it is "fascist nonsense," you're just asking for confrontation. Be better than the trolls, and help keep this place civil, please.
Seek out an administrator if you still need help. Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration are the final places to go for dispute resolution, but there are plenty of people that can help along the way.
And finally, don't worry, I read every edit, and I don't intend on blinding reverting an entire IP range. — RG2 talk 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - last time I removed a long inappropriate diatribe there in Spanish I got banned by an over enthusiastic admin. It would have been nice if the author saw the error of his ways, but at least TFN is gone. I hear in PC circles spades are now called pointed shovels. Thanks for your prompt assistance. --Gibnews

[edit] Missy Higgins & John Mayer images

I'd like to know how both 65px and 65px are deemed to have no copyright tags? I uploaded both of them and noted their copyright status. Each came from Flickr which is presently listed under fair use and more than adequately indicate the central subject matter of the page.

If you can answerr why these images are up for deletion, I'll start tagging images differently, but I've tagged these as required according to the standard guidelines. If you're above these rules, then so be it, but that doesn't mean that these images are.

--lincalinca 13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this and am jumping in-;) FLICKR'S DEFAULT IS COPYRIGHT, NOT FAIRUSE. The uploader can change it though. I couldn't even find the Johnny Mayer photo on flickr, but found the missy higgins one at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadfuldan/6988362/, and is listed as "COPYRIGHT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". Rlevse 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't tag them as fair use - you tagged one as GFDL and one as CC Attribution Sharealike, with no evidence that the creators of the images released them under such a license. Since there are plenty of alternative 'free' images available on Flickr, there's absolutely no reason we should possibly use these copyrighted ones. If you're going to be so rude and assume that I think I'm just above the rules, you should at least be right. Don't waste my time like that. — RG2 talk 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, you too. Glad you still work with wiki.Rlevse 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Two things: before commenting with things like "Don't waste my time like that.", I'd suggest referring to WP:Civility, especially since your response was as unhelpful as the listing for deletion in the first place.
I'm not disputing that the images were incorrectly tagged, but that doesn't mean that they're ineligible to remain here; it simple means that they need to be retagged. In both cases, I'd attached the links from where the images have been obtained. Both of them are free images.
In my initial post, I've asked for a simple notation of guidance as to how you believe that the image should be noted, and upon being advised, I'll ensure any images I upload from now on to adhere to this, however, as I said initially, I followed the guidelines that're posted in the box above every time you post an image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs).
I'm not too keen on guiding people who can't act civil themselves, and I'm not up for helping people who lash out at people who know what they're doing. But, anyway...
Neither of them are free images. Images from Flickr are, by default, not free unless specifically licensed that way. I don't know if the John Mayer image is free or not - you haven't provided any evidence, and I can't find the image on Flickr as a freely-licensed one. The Missy Higgins image is certainly not free - you provided the evidence, and the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion you made. "All rights reserved" does not mean free for the taking.
At the same time, there exist free alternatives to the current images. As a result, there is no possible fair use rationale. Period. — RG2 talk 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you reading my contributions page?

I just noticed you removed the protection that I put onto the Lucy Kenwright page. I'm well aware that putting the protection template doesn't protect a page. I put it there as a deterrant so that if people decide to go and move r edit the page, it simple prompts for them to view the talk page first. I'm not aware of any templates that advise this.
--lincalinca 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We often put in page notices by writing messages at the top of the page using HTML comments, like so: <!-- your message here -->. That way, potential editors see the message when they open up the editing box, and we don't have to use misleading templates.
Yes, I am reading your contributions page. — RG2 talk 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers DVDs

I don't know much about a talk page or how to start a new topic on this page but do you know if there going to relase any of the other CHEERS DVDS Could you please get back to me and leave me a message or something if you know something. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jet7111 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Your edit to Image:Cat Osterman publicity photo USA olympic team.jpg

Hi, RG2. Regarding this edit, when I follow the source link I see an HTTP 404 error page, what make the source unverifiable. Is it a problem with my setup? Can you follow the link and verify the source without an error? Thanks, --Abu Badali 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable for us to require that all online sources remain working for as long as that image is used on Wikipedia. It's highly unlikely that it'll happen, given the way the Internet works, and highly unreasonable to expect that. I regularly list for deletion images with sketchy sources from new users. However, with users like Johntex, I think we should assume good faith that the source is correct, but no longer working.
Though I always have a fairly restrictive view of fair use like you — I don't think the Cat Osterman image has much of a fair use rationale, as it's just showing what she looks like, I don't like using magazine covers, etc. — I don't think it's reasonable to have to repeatedly verify every contribution from every good user.
If you want to delete the Cat Osterman image on the basis that the fair use rationale isn't good enough, I'm fine with that. If you want to assume that the source is wrong, then no, I don't agree with that. The source is USA Softball, then. — RG2 talk 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't doubt Johntex's word when he says the image was once at that url. But we simply can't open this precedent. And we don't apply WP:AGF in varying degrees depending on the user history. Admins are bound to the same rules as new users (or even unregistered users).
Also, for images tagged as promotional, the a verifiable source is highly necessary. I have seen hundreds of good faith uploads where the editor failed to read the source-site's "terms of use", or copyright notices. There is this common misconception that the fact that an image is being used to promote someone (or something) in one site would imply that anyone would be welcome to use the same image for the same reason, which is simply untrue.
I'm readding the source request for now. We can't give Johntext privileges that other used don't have. Admin status is supposed to bring new obligations, and not new rights. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I know the promophoto tag as well, and I know it's terribly misused. But a source is provided, and the very core of Wikipedia is to assume good faith.
How do you know that the articles I've written aren't taken from elsewhere? How do you know that I actually took the images I uploaded to Commons? You can't. Why do I not tag your entire user page as content that you might not have made yourself?
I don't know why you assumed I thought that admins should get more rights. I'm saying that when a user has a bunch of bad images, I scrutinize his other uploads. — RG2 talk 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith. But as I said (and you seemed to agree (sorry if I misunderstood you)), we have far too many misguided good-faith uploads of promotional images. I for one, have not found any copyright notice on the http://www.usasoftball.com/ web site. Google cache points for some old pages that claim copyright belongs to ASA, and with the "Terms of Use" link pointing to a document on http://asasoftball.com., and it clearly states that the images on that site are not "promotional".
In short, it's completely feasible that user Johntex, acting in good faith, uploaded a "promotional image" that wasn't. And that's why we can't do without a verifiable source. Hope you understand. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hope I understand? I've understood everything you've said so far. That's not to say I agree.
So what happens if we find a source for the image, and that source says that the image is a promotional one. Is the image good for Wikipedia use — but only until the Web site goes down someday, or the site rearranges their images? That's unreasonable, as it wouldn't only apply to promotional images, but would render nearly all of our fair use images from an online source invalid one day.
If it was incorrectly tagged as a promotional image, then list it at IFD. Put up a fair use replaceable or fair use disputed tag. Strike out the fair use rationale and tag. Tag it as an unlicensed image. Fine by me. But there is certainly a source provided. — RG2 talk 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi RG2, sorry to clutter up your talk page, but there is a link to this discussion from the image page. So to avoid fragmenting the discussion, I am adding my comment here instead of to the Image talk page. I will comment here only on the main thing being discussed here, which is the viability of the source.
Concerning the 404 error for the source, my thinking is exactly the same as RG2's on this point. I will quote him, "I think it's unreasonable for us to require that all online sources remain working for as long as that image is used on Wikipedia. It's highly unlikely that it'll happen, given the way the Internet works, and highly unreasonable to expect that."
That is exactly right. All we can do is provide the original source. It is not up to us to police that the link always works, that the source website never rearranges their files, etc.
We are not even required to give an on-line source. There is no requirement for it to be convenient to verify the source. If I cite a musuem's historical archive, you would have to go there to verify it. If I say that a picture came from a certain non-profit org, you would have to e-mail them or call them or visit them to verify it. If the photo came from a rare, out-of-print book, you would have to try to find a copy of that book if you wanted to verify it was the source of the picture. In this case, if you want to track the image further, you can contact the people who run that website.

--68.37.13.245 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)== I LOVE CAT ==

As RG2 points out, we have no way at all to verify a user's claim that a particular photo was self-made.
In short, the source for the photo remains a valid record for where the image originated. That is all we require. It does not matter if the photo is still avaialble there or not. Johntex\talk 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilt Chamberlin Article Mixup

Dear RG2,

I have received a message from you mentioning a change I supposedly made in the Wilt Chamberlin article. I have made no such change to any article, there must be some sort of mixup for I only browse/read on Wikipedia. Please make sure you correctly identify the user whos post you revert in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.226.144 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

It was your IP address that made a bad edit back in May of last year. I'm not expecting that you're going to be the same guy 7 to 8 months later, but once a message is left, the 'new messages' notice will stay until someone who happens to get assigned that same IP logs on. — RG2 talk 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Wing Spoken Word Project

Do you mind if I delete the West Wing listing from the in progress table on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia page, since it appears it has been recorded and uploaded?

Ara Pelodi 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks! — RG2 talk 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images missing source

Hi, RG2. Please, understand that "(c) Paramount Pictures" is not sufficient as source information for an image tagged as promotional. You may want to read about this case. Not every image found on Internet is promotional. Most of them are not intended for reuse at all. A lot of images are uploaded to Wikipedia and tagged as promotional in good faith , but when the source is analyzed, it comes out to be an unintended copyvio. This way, we simply can't keep "promotional" images when they don't have a reliable source. --Abu badali (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't condescend to me — you know full well that I know what a promotional or press kit image is. That said, I reiterate that it's preposterous to expect that everything has an indefinitely-working Internet link. Sites go down, and things do exist offline. — RG2 talk 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sites go down... editors commit mistake. If you take some time to read the case I pointed you to, you will learn that this images probably came from some official startrek site, and where never intended to be used by other sites. They're not promotioanal on Wikipedia's sense. Please, do not revert war over these images. Removing deletion warnings may be considered vandalism.
"I know what a promotional or press kit image is." Do you read a site's terms of use before grabbing it's images as promotional? --Abu badali (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said that these were promotional images, and I don't recall using a {{promotional}} tag anytime in the recent past — you seem to really have a penchant for putting words in my mouth. If you tag a image as missing a source, it means that a source is not provided; here, a source is clearly provided. If it's not a promotional image, why don't you dispute the fair use tag and accompanying rationale, if the latter exists?
And as for calling my actions potential vandalism? Give me a break. — RG2 talk 01:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
All those images are tagged as either {{promotional}} or {{promophoto}} and as such, need a verifiable source. Users commit a lot of good faith mistakes, and tagging random images found on Internet as {{promotional}} or {{promophoto}} is among the most common mistakes. --Abu badali (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Enough is enough. RG2, will you stop removing the no source tag from this images and readd the ones you removed? Don't you agree we need a verifiable source to make sure an image is really promotional? Revert-wars are not good for the project. If you really strongly believe the "no source" concern is baseless, why don't you simply explain that on the image page, without removing the tag, and let the closing admin to judge the case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
The uploaders of these images clearly mentioned their source. That is why it makes no sense to tag them as lacking a source. However, these images clearly have no fair use rationale. That is why they should be listed for deletion. You're contesting their status as promotional images — and I never disagreed with that. — RG2 talk 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a technicality. A promotional image needs some promotional kit as a source. What we have is a lot of images tagged as promotional but with no such source (although they have an incomplete source information). To fix that, we need either a better source of better tag. Would you be ok if I tagg the images as {{no license}} instead? (That's because we currently have no basis to tag them as {{promotional}}.
But still, no fair use rationale would be ok without a verifiable source. It doesn't suffice to know the image is "(c) Paramount Pictures". We need to know when, where and (mainly) why were these images release in order to make a statement like "the use of this image does not detracts from it's original value". If the image was really released as promotional material, then our use does not detracts from it's original value. But if the image, for instance, was released as part of the startrek.com website, our use is competitive with the image's original use, and the rationale would be broken.
Without a verifiable source (and as I source I don't mean only the copyright holder, but information on the image release), no fair use claim would be valid. --Abu badali (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's image use policy states that we need a description, source, date, location, author, permission, and other versions of the file. A description is easy to come up with if we feel that the image isn't worth deleting. The source includes the copyright holder, and things like URLs — if they're available. Dates, locations, and authors are may or may not be available with press kit images; some have them, some don't. When I've worked with press kits in the past, location has probably been the least common data available — but it's possible that none of this data is available. Regardless, the image use policy, for one reason or another, lists 'source' apart from 'date', 'location', and 'author'. All the images in question had the source, Paramount, and some had a description, though the latter isn't a huge deal right now.
So, the source seems fine — we just need a good license. I know that most people don't understand that promo images are a very limited set of files. However, if we start off by assuming that sources that aren't online, broken Internet links, and the like are wrong, it sets a bad precedent. All images, whether used under fair use or not, require a source. Do we start a large-scale image wipe if Flickr ever goes down and their CC licensing information goes down, just because it's not longer a verifiable source? Do we wipe all of the U.S. government PD images when they decide to shuffle around their site and the link gets broken, because it's no longer a verifiable source? If it's an offline promotional image, do we not trust the uploader just because everyone else does it wrong and we can't verify the source easily? Do we wipe all of the images everyone's uploaded under a GFDL-self tag, because there's no verifiable evidence that they actually own the image and have the right to release it as such?
If the image was released by startrek.com just for the Web, and not as promotional material, then by all means, say the license is wrong. Tag it as a bad license or unlicensed, take it out of the articles and tag it as orphaned, dispute the fair use tag and non-existent (in this case) rationale, list it on IFD as a CV, whatever. But a source is still clearly provided. — RG2 talk 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems we really disagree that "(c) Paramount Pictures" is enough as a source. I'll dispute the promotional tag, instead. There are too many wrong things with these images that we can chose how thy may be listed for deletion. --Abu badali (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka Army pics

Could you please restore those pics as they were before? I was discussing with an admin regarding those pics and create that CR template as a temporary solution. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Berg

A descriptive fair use rationale seems to already exist. Besides, do you think some Iraqi insurgents are really gonna sue Wikipedia for using their image? WhisperToMe 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, there is no substitute for posting images of Nick Berg's death... so I'll use that rationale. WhisperToMe 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finns

The images have a license. Tagging them as "no license indicated" is incorrect. If you dispute the compatibility of the license with wikipedia's policies, there are other forums for that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't specify any restriction, so why do you need to be paranoid about whether they might violate some provision that doesn't actually exist? The place to dispute the legitimacy of using images with incomplete permission is on a policy talk page, not speedy tags on images. The speedy criteria are for deletion of images that don't even specify a license, not for when you have doubts about whether the license suffices. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dinar-25000.jpg

You wrote on my talk page:

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinar-25000.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — RG2 talk 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done as you asked. This was one of the first images I've uploaded to the site. Why did it take you so long to notify me? Also, I do not find any other note images on the site listing FUR -- why single this one out? -- Jason Palpatine 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

[edit] Template:Cvg-titlescreen

I haven't the slightest idea either. I found out, however, that a dummy edit refreshed the cache and removed the images (I tried it with one test image) from Category:Non-free image copyright tags. I then went to Wikipedia:Bot requests to ask a bot operator to do a dummy edit on every single image in Category:Non-free image copyright tags. I was told, however, to let the servers refresh: the thing is, I have no idea what is going on, and I'm pretty sure the servers don't either. You can go vouch for my idea there if you feel like it. Cheers, Iamunknown 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large Crest with spirit.jpg

Actually its use has been superseded by Image:Large_Crest_with_spirit_transparent.gif. I suppose the procedure will be to let the image in question (Large Crest with spirit.jpg) be deleted. Thanks for the notice; I should have brought it up once I took it out of the article. Alekjds talk 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Image:JediKnight-cover.jpg

Funny, I know I tagged that image with {{Template:game-cover}} when I first uploaded it a few months ago. The image page's history reveals an anonymous user removed the tag (along with the copyright tags of a number of other fair-use images). I've restored them all. Oh well, I guess we users don't seem to pay much attention to the history of images as we do for articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent TFDs

See the creator's contributions (here) for other, exciting opportunities to delete templates. Some of them arguably have no legal or practical basis. I might nominate some of them when I find the time. Cheers, Iamunknown 09:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad you are a part of the Scouting project and look forward to long happy wiki editing with you. PS: Please check out the Wood Badge FAC, it's gotten very little attention. Rlevse 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar

Please respect the sensitivities of others.

If you are not concerned about Spanish flags, leave the issue alone. You could try adding a swastika to the page on Israel and see what they think about a symbol from Jewish past.

Spanish flags are OK in Spain, Gibraltar is not spain.

--Gibnews 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments serve as evidence that you are missing the point. This is a project coordination issue, not the heated political issue you are making this out to be. — RG2 talk 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sprotection

When semi-protection has a time-limit, the sprotection template shouldn't be added. (I don't actually know why, but that's what the sprotect page says.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And the description at the template itself gives us a third option, ha. (For semi-protections that expire...) Such is how this place works, I suppose. Thanks for the note. — RG2 talk 08:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And I teach my undergraduates that the world can't contain contradictions... I should add "except Wikipedia". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Nope, you didn't miss anything. I must have been distracted by something else while I was closing late at night. Thanks for the catch! IronGargoyle 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CT/4 image.

Hi for those of us who are terminally thick, could you explain why you are trying to delete this. I am a little suspicious of trigger happy bots, as I notice there are a LOT of images with the same NZ crown copyright status uploaded, including a few from the same source, which have been on wikipedia for ages without creating an issue. Not necessarily saying you're wrong, just can't follow the abreviated techno-bable coding which makes up the copyright tags. (This could DEFINIETLY be more user friendly :-) Winstonwolfe 05:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the IFD listing. Please note, a bot will never delete an image. Never has, and probably never will. — RG2 talk 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Winstonwolfe 07:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ABCA (NZDF).jpg and Image:Aust NZ Tonga.jpg

Why have you listed these articles for deletion? Both images were published under a New Zealand Crown Copyright statement which allows them to "be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission" and were tagged as such when they were uploaded. Please follow the links back to the sources of the images and read the copyright statements and then remove the tags. Thanks, --Nick Dowling 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See the IFD listing. NZCC tags are non-free licenses. — RG2 talk 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Image

Hi there, I uploaded that image of that Go North East bus and I released it into the public domain because I took it myself, I did not find it on anoy ther websites, therefore the licence tag has obviolusly been changed and therefore because it is used on article and is a image (not the very best quality but still OK) then it should not be deleted, I will change the image licence back to public domain as I created it! Thanks anyway and please leave any other comments on my talk page. Regards - Tellyaddict 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helsinki police car

I contacted the Finnish police about permission to use the picture I took of the police car. They have sent the question to their central command and will inform me when they have a decision. JIP | Talk 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from police

I received a reply from the Finnish police.

I could not open the image, so I could not see it. (This is because I botched up the URL I gave them.) Because of this, I am replying on a general level.
First I state that a police car, by itself, cannot be subject to copyright and thus a photograph of one does not infringe copyright (see §1 of the Finnish Copyright Act, which states that copyrights protect "literal or artistic works"). By the copyright law, the photograph the asker took can be subject to copyright. I must further note that the official police emblems (for example, the sword logo) may not be used without permission from the police department of the Ministry of the Interior, but as I understand the case was not the use of police emblems, but rather only a photograph of a police car. If the asker wants to confirm this, I recommend contacting the police chief management (the police department of the Ministry of the Interior).
Second I state that when photographing in a public place, and specially when photographing private persons, as well as the copyright law and possible permission from the subject, for example §24 of the Finnish Criminal Act (specially, regarding secretive viewing (espionage? voyeurism?) and blasphemy), and privacy protection otherwise. In these cases, the issue is mostly about what the photograph is used for.
Finally I state that I have not studied the Wikipedia policy, because it does not fall under my duties in this case. I do recommend that the asker studies them himself, or with the help of a lawyer, because the policy is binding between the asker and Wikipedia. Because of this, the policy may include further restrictions regarding the issue.
Ara Haikarainen, Finnish Police

So does this mean it is OK to use the image? JIP | Talk 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandal

Haha, thanks, that was random. How are things? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's good. Storrs is kind of a dull town, and it wasn't a fantastic season for UConn basketball, but hey. :) Have you graduated? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope, still have a couple of semesters left. Good to hear from you. — RG2 talk 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away from the page

Let's take this away from IfD for a bit. All that's doing is generating entrenched positions and wikistalking.

I just wanted to rationally discuss the template technique, and what it would take to possibly make it compliant with policy. I don't see it as obviously not compliant, though it seemed like it might involve something more. I wanted to investigate what that might be, but this whole IfD thing has sidetracked that.

Frankly, what I was expecting out of people was a "hmmm, that approach might be workable, but simply not using these in template space is an easy-to-follow rule people can understand, and that's a more practical rule than allowing for some carefully-crafted exceptions." That sort of response is non-confrontational and easily acceptable. Gimmetrow 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Unfree_images_on_Templates.2C_using_includeonly pretty much sums it up. I don't see any loose ends — Ed and Mecu seem to have clarified the issue on sports logos. The Evanescence template isn't a good example of an exception at all, as a navigation box isn't very essential to the article. If there's any new points you'd like to bring up, you should bring 'em up there so everyone can see.
As far as confrontation goes, I'd advise you to tone down your accusations against multiple users oof disruptive behavior and Wikistalking. — RG2 talk 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Gimmetrow 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeesh.

Do I always need to have to try and find a picture that fits the description "FOUND ON A PARODY SITE, AVAILABLE FOR USE" with it getting deleted by some copyright bot? I mean, the picture you marked as orphaned, who cares, I found it on uncyclopedia, unless several people went "OMG THATS COPYRIGHTED!!11" it wouldn't be a problem because someone just photoshopped it and put it on the internet. Raptor Jesus 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK? — RG2 talk 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
KO? Raptor Jesus 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AP2-The Ram Rlion-cover-1416520600.jpg

PING! re: Image:AP2-The Ram Rlion-cover-1416520600.jpg, Please explain... What links here clearly shows three seperate articles? As an anthology, it's certainly suitable as used in the 1632 Editorial Board article. (This is a rather unique series, being mainly all collaboratively written, I admit.) So what's the beef? How do I clear your tagging? I checked this before with Sherool, has something changed? And how did you ever miss the three article links?

   (Really good reads by the way, if you've the least interest in history. It really brings the birth of the modern world home and ties so many things together. Fascinating at times!) // FrankB 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's an odd usage of the image. The Wikipedia database dump flagged the image as orphaned because it's not actually included in any article, just linked to. I'm going to place a {{Not orphan}} tag on the image, as it's a special case that's just going to get hit again by a tagger in the future without it.
I believe I've actually flipped through Flint's novels before at a library or something. Never actually sat down to read 'em though. Thanks for the recommendation, and thanks for the heads up. — RG2 talk 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggest you do the same for the whole Template:1632 covers then, as this did bite me before, and I'm really too caught up in other projects to pay attention to a fiction series at the moment. That To-do keeps getting shoved a bit deeper and deeper by other matters. Can't wait for the next installment though. LOL. Try the ebooks at Baen Free Library... you don't even have to pay to sample. Thanks. // FrankB 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I just looked over the rest, and they all seem to have actual image links onto an article. It was just the one that had a problem. Thanks. — RG2 talk 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Roger... Think I found the larger one used on the article page a bit later, but really can't recall. Thanks. // FrankB 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Air_TV_DVD_Vol_06.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Air_TV_DVD_Vol_06.png. 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. — RG2 talk 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I presume you're planning on moving this article to the mainspace sometime? I'll take off the tag for now. — RG2 talk 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It was originaly on mainspace. someone blanked it or something. I do not know/care at this point. The image in question may be deleted. -- Cat chi? 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)