User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Dec 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request For Comment/Durova

Please just do it already.

While I have little faith it will be anything but a re-hashing of the petty squabbling already seen, at least it will be a contained squabbling.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it but have little hope the work would accomplish anything. I actually voted to delete RfC/User conduct not long ago because it's so useless. If Durova had honor she would answer the recall request, but apparently that's not the case, sadly. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Well, "honour" is a pretty harsh word here... It's easy to say something, forget you said it, say something else, change your mind, etc. There are two versions of "recall" she's proposed, I'm suggesting you take the second.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrutinizing

O-kaay... Please feel free to utterly ignore this advice, but having had a little hop around your last few contributions, and in particular the response to those contributions, I have some concerns for your "wiki-safety" for lack of a better word.

Just that I know from rude experiance that it can be terribly easy to get blocked for asking straight-forward questions. I'd like you to consider, ahead of time, how you'll respond if that happens. If it does, please be as utterly squeaky-clean as it is humanly possible to be. doubleplusgood behavior will be utterly required of you, lest the death-spiral commence.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I've been targeted by unjust blocks before, also. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What a depressingly apt summation of the entire problem. sNkrSnee | t.p. 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"I've been targeted by unjust blocks before.." explains you issue with Ryulong [1]. However a word of caution is advised, those blocks were "reportedly" a result of harasment of at least 3 editors. I'm not arguing the validity of events last June and July, I am concerned about the 6 admins recently you have chosen to direct scrutiny towards. This may become a very serious matter per Wikipedia:Harassment. This sort of behavior is blockable on its own especially if the blocking Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. Just step lighty and don't chose, in pursuit of a certain point, to reject input that your edits may be percieved as harassing. You've made great contributions, please chose the right path. I may dissagree with some of your edits, however, I don't want to see you blocked--Hu12 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by your warning, Hu12. Look into those so-called "harassment" accusations from Ryulong's earlier block before talking about it, because he bought an RfC shortly after that. However, I would sincerely welcome your input on how any of my recent questions of admin conduct are not valid ones - particularly Ryulong's blocks. And please, explain to me the part of WP:HARASS I am violating, I can't wait to hear it. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and see this. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Listen, I'm not arguing the validity of events last June and July. However reasonable Wikipedians may conclude that your recent pursuits are harassment. You don't need to be impressed, just heed the warning. --Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Please give me some clue how my recent edits are a violation of WP:HARASS. Videmus Omnia Talk 08:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my last comment. You have been asked by both Ryulong and Durova to stop the repeated questioning. Wikipedia has proper venues for this. Take your concerns and evidence directly to the Arbitration Committee. Don't harass them on their talk pages. --Hu12 (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, Hu12. Asking questions about admin mistakes is not harassment. Durova is the one who has asked the concerns to be taken to ArbCom, and I already said I would save any further concerns for that case. Ryulong has specifically asked that his actions not be raised elsewhere for now. It's not like I've even posted that often on his talk page, he just yells "harassment" whenever I do. Don't come here and try to tell me what to do unless you're willing to back up your accusations. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting

I reverted once only, I'd suggest you do the same. No problem with it being a redirect while talk occurs on the talk page of the RfC. Bon chance. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me to explain the concept of harassment

Videmus Omnia. Since you were apparently so thick headed (wink) that you didn't grasp it with the well-known duck example (!! - and no pun intended), allow me to do you the favor of explaining, so you don't cause yourself more problems. Harassment is when a certain un-mentionable admin tells you to stop talking about something and you don't. Harassment is asking questions that someone doesn't want to answer, even after having been told repeatedly to look at number xx, for the answer which was already covered, and that this should respond to all, and that if you aren't happy you should go to Arbcom. That's what harassment is. For further explainations, see Harassment by Proxy (when you are told that your questions mean that you are some other editor using you as a meatpuppet. Note that harassment by proxy threats are best delivered by proxy). Best, 85.5.180.48 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For bravely defending anonymous IP editors against the powerful, and for reasserting the right of all contributors to privacy.24.19.33.82 (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for your service to our country. - Jehochman Talk 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure and honor to serve, no thanks are necessary. But I appreciate your sentiment, I wish there were more of it. (Though I have to admit it's much changed for the better since I originally enlisted back during the Cold War.) Videmus Omnia Talk 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFAR on Ryulong

Hi Videmus Omnia. Just a note to say I formatted your RFAR a bit. I hope you're well. :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, Deskana - thanks! And, yes, I'm doing well. By the way, I never did hear back from PETA on that copyright issue. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Annoying. I guess we leave that as it is then. In the event that we receieve an e-mail from them requesting takedown (or a DMCA take down notice) then we can leave it, I suppose. Nice to hear you're doing good. --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to become involoved in this, but I have to admit that the user you are RFAing against has badly abused blocking powers. Here is a link to a complaint that was filed this summer [2] which directly ties into your reasons for the RfA. I'm not supporting either side in this dispute, just presenting evidence that both sides might want to use. Best. -OberRanks (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the info! Videmus Omnia Talk 20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OberRanks just happens to be a party of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock on a simple glance of contributions, but that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And that thread was made prior to the filing of the RFC, which is also neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have admitted to being User:Husnock and have updated both user pages to reflect that. It doesnt change the original concern that you blocked on site two ip addresses for no other reason than you thought they were me, even though I was never banned or blocked in any way from posting to this site. These blocks certianly weren't "corrected and apologized for" as you indicated in another one for your edits. But, as you said, its neither here nor there. -OberRanks (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of OberRanks' history, which doesn't seem relevant to improper blocks. If the RFAR happens to be accepted, this can be presented as evidence then. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :D

Keep up the good work, mate :) (Yes I'm back for awhile, I've been a bit active over at Commons, not too much here though). -Nard 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm looking forward to having you around full-time. I'm planning on following Riana's example and shifting the majority of my work to Commons myself. Take care, my submarining brother! (better you than me - I prefer being far above sea level to being far below it.) :) - Videmus Omnia Talk 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "tyop"

lols sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the comment about the comment removal. It did seem a bit odd what Hu12 was saying. The whole episode has rather put me off editing for the moment, but no doubt I'll feel the pull again in a few months time :) Annihilatenow (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 48 26 November 2007 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly Unfree Image - Lovemakers

I had checked on an image you had tagged for copyright violation (Image:051706lm12.jpg). I put my full response on the IFD page, but I was wondering if there was any procedure to go through about contacting possible copyright holders to double check the photo's status. - Optigan13 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the uploader through flickr. So go ahead and ignore this message. Optigan13 (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Optigan, I'm really sorry for not replying earlier, it just slipped my mind, unfortunately. Good work on obtaining rights to the photo! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually haven't heard back from the uploader yet. I'm using my cameraphone picture until we can get that or another high quality picture back up on the page. If nothing else I am going to see the band again on new years eve, so I can have another crack at a photo for them. Although I'm no pro so I won't be able to provide something nearly as good as that initial photo. LaraLove deleted the photo after some back and forth at her page[3]. Thanks for getting back to me anyway. - Optigan13 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine public domain images

Hi Videmus. I have done a lot of worked related to Argentine cinema and have just found out that images older than 20 years are public domain. E.g Image:Legrandsisters.jpg PLease could you look into it and see about changing all the licenses which currently have fair use licenses and converting them to copywright expired and upload them into the commons instead? Perhaps this incldes older screenshots an film posters too? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind helping. I moved the above photo...how do I know which other photos should be retagged/moved? Videmus Omnia Talk 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look into Category:Argentine film actors a good way to do it is look at the brith and death dates of the actor or film director. As most of my work has been on older ones most I have uploaded are copywright expired. E.g images like Image:AidaAlberti.jpg are some fifty years expired and are still tagged as copywrighted -they can be clearly seen. It would be good to have a detailed image bank in the commons for Cinema of Argentina and sub cats etc Argentine film actors etc. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At present I have many images of the classic film posters and screenshots from 1930s 1940s and 1950s etc.Image:Ayúdameavivir poster.jpg. I have always had a feeling they are public domain images not fair use rationale ones. Could you check on this that there is an expiration of copywright in Argentina also film images/posters. At present that license looks like photos but I'm certian many of the film and images are public domain now. I wouldn't want them to be uploaded to the commons and then find in a few weeks they have all been deleted and we are left without the images before! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like all photographs and images pre 1987 are public domain ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've got a backlog of photo uploads to do first, then I'll do some checking into it at Commons:Licensing. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting free content

I saw you edited your Requesting free content subpage. I was wondering if you still wanted me to work on a Spanish translation. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. Taric25 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm sorry that your request for arbitration did not go through for Ryulong. I do appreciate your attempts to engage the matter even when it may result in negative feedback. However the arbitration committee seem to disregard common good faith and civility for the sake of vandalism fighting which takes very little effort and respect. I wish you many success in your future endeavors. Hyposave 13:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 49 3 December 2007 About the Signpost
Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open 
Possible license migration sparks debate Featured articles director names deputy 
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay" 
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your essay

Hi Videmus. I just want to thank you for your essay on obtaining free content. After reading it a few months ago, I created a Flickr account solely to test out your advice. I've since gotten twelve successful responses. I use to make the mistake of asking if a photo could simply be "used on Wikipedia" without an explicit licensing statement, but now I know better :) So yeah, thanks for writing up useful info. It's definitely one of the most useful things I've come across. Also, I'm wondering what's your success rate percentage-wise? Spellcast (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's great to hear that someone got some use out of the essay - thanks for the feedback! So far as success rate, it really varies. My Flickr success rate is pretty good - probably somewhere in the range of 80% or so. I actually end up with more work there than I can handle sometimes - for example, I'll request permission on a particular celebrity photo, and, after I establish a relationship with the photographer, I'll find they have dozens of photos they're willing to release.
Direct requests to article subjects are a little more dicey. The general rule - the more notable they are, the less likely they are to respond. So I'll more frequently hear back from bloggers, minor authors and college professors than from people who are already in the limelight. My success rate in direct requests is probably in the range of 15-20%, but I make up for it by sending out a LOT of requests. Hope this helps! Videmus Omnia Talk 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow 80% on Flickr is a lot more than I expected. For me, it's about 50% (WP:COPYREQ says that half the people says yes). I think I first saw your essay on User:East718's subpage at User:East718/Images. You might've already been aware of the page, but it shows your advice has been very helpful! Also, I see you're a member of the OTRS team. I read in an old version of the WP:OTRS page that about 200 emails per day are received? Spellcast (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm not with OTRS - you have to be an admin for that, which I'm not. For OTRS issues, I usually deal with Riana or Deskana. However, I've found that the more clear the e-mail permission is, the faster the request gets processed. In regards to Flickr success rate, I think I might have better luck on Flickr because I always check the user's photostream to see if they're still active. If a Flickr user hasn't uploaded anything in a year, they're probably no longer around to answer a request. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I just got the impression you were an OTRS member. You'd definitely be helpful with that. Spellcast (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For endless, and tireless work helping Wikipedia remain a free and legal encyclopedia, while being as pretty as possible Haemo (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Haemo! Videmus Omnia Talk 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi, VO. I came across an interesting situtation recently, and since you're our resident copyright expert maybe you can help out. I purchased the recent release in beautiful, anamorphic widescreen of Wife to be Sacrificed (HIGHLY recommended ;) ) , which also contains a very useful filmed documentary on director Masaru Konuma. However, included on the disc is a text biography of the director, which obviously is very closely cribbed from our own biography, even copying several sentences verbatim. While, as main author of the article, I find this flattering, unfortunately, no attribution or thanks to Wikipedia is given. Here's my question: How do I protect the article from potential accusations of copyright infringement of this disc, which is actually based on our own article. Also, would it be appropriate to list this biography as a "Source," even if I don't cite it inline in the article, just as proof of "Nobatabilitly", i.e. coverage of the subject by reliable third-party sourcing? Dekkappai (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I don't see any problem with quoting the bio as a source for our article, so long as it's not a circular citation (i.e. they first used Wikipedia as a reference, then we use them, with no original source being attributed). So far as copyright worries, I would just leave a note on the article talk page. If you want to be super conservative, you could change our wording or phrasing so that it doesn't exactly match theirs. But I think you should be OK. Congrats on doing unpaid work for the film industry. :) - Videmus Omnia Talk 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, VO. Right, I'm not going to cite the Wiki-copied article as a source for any facts, since I've already sourced them anyway. Just as proof of coverage of the subject/notability. Unpaid work for the film industry, huh? Doesn't sound as honorable when put that way. Think the next street closure/filming I walk through will let me snatch a donut off their food table in lieu of payment? Ungrateful wretches! Dekkappai (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another question comes up... In our article, I quote Konuma, and provide the source for the quotes-- an Asian Cult Cinema Magazine interview. The biography on the DVD copies these quotes verbatim, but provides no source, not ACC or Wikipedia. Are they setting themselves up for potential squawking from ACC? Dekkappai (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, unless they worked out some kind of behind-the-scenes deal. But my guess would be that it is a lazy office drone in a production company somewhere who used Google to get the text, betting that he would get away with it. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Check out User:Emijrp/Duplicated images

You don't need to mark all of these for speedy deletion - there's already a place that they're listed and we're getting to them. There's thousands of these, and there's no need to bog down the "admin backlog" / speedy deletion list. You'll see under "file links" the User:Emijrp/# on the image - we're getting to them slowly but surely. Thanks for the good work. SkierRMH (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies.

[edit] Seeking other opinions

Howdy Tim. Any opinion on these cases? Image:Davidlcook.jpg, Image:Cliffjumper-moviedeluxe.jpg, Image:Minervaflag.jpg. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I commented, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] identity

Whoa, really? I remember RJASE1 (talk · contribs); never realized you were one in the same. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue came up here. I figured that since I promoted transparency during the Durova thing, I really should walk the walk. I'll write up an essay or something later explaining the whole thing - right now I'm being forced to go Christmas shopping. :) - Videmus Omnia Talk 18:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Salute
Salute

Thank you for writing the essay User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. I used the essay to improve my flickr account profile, which I have been using to request flickr contributors to consider relicensing photographs for inclusion into the Wikimedia projects. I have a much more professional looking profile on flickr now. I estimate my success rate to be around 60%. I salute you and your efforts to expand and improve the images on Wikipedia. Royalbroil 15:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Royalbroil! I'm glad to hear that it was useful, please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "with permission of photographer"

Greetings. I was looking through IFD and came across this, and I thought "This looks like a job for Super-VO!"  :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I'll try and get in touch with the photographer - if I can confirm, I'll file an OTRS ticket and move the images out to the Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Thanks for all your support -- pre-start even!

As my first official act, I almost spammed what may be two fair use images[4][5][6] (labeled as free) across 86 user talk pages. I thought of my two Commons gurus (you and Herby) when I realized I was on thin ice -- it would have been a very inauspicious start! --A. B. (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh - I put Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A. B. on my watchlist as soon as I started working with you, because I know it would come someday. I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
PS When can we get you to adminship status??? --A. B. (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe once I've properly reformed from my brief vandalism career. Actually I want to spend some time creating some articles and bringing some others to featured status. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Six months (and a new chronological year) is a long time in wiki-RfA time. If you've kept your nose clean since then, I'd say January or February is entirely reasonable. Just be sure to acknowledge it up front. I'm sure you've pulled much worse pranks in the USAF if you're a Master Sergeant; I think it's probably a universal requirement of most militaries. --A. B. (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 50 10 December 2007 About the Signpost
Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction 
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here" News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: OTRS question

Heya - I think that would probably suffice. :) Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a blanket permission under the GFDL for all the images onsite. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
{{PermissionOTRS-ID}} is the one to use if you just have the ticket number, not the link to the ticket. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the link goes to the ticket number (which contains the entire correspondence related to the issue). I think of the ticket number as what we send to people who have sent us the e-mail, so that they have the record, while the link is for OTRS personnel. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 08:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Image:Isla_Fisher_(actress).jpg and Image:Myleene_Klass_(Hyde_Park,_2007).jpg

Hi, thanks for letting me know, I was starting to have my doubts, it's probably best they are deleted, I did download them in good faith though. Have a good one. Sue Wallace (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - not your fault the Flickr user gave a bad license! Videmus Omnia Talk 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another situation

I've got another situation that could use your special touch: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 9#Image:Prof David Hughes.jpg. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll work with the uploader, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Russ

Does this look like a guy who would go around punching GIs?
Does this look like a guy who would go around punching GIs?

my tim russ edit was serious. he punched me once —Preceding unsigned comment added by Droprock211 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting story! Please don't vandalize Wikipedia articles anymore, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

you know i'm in the armed forces as well. i'd expect some leeway—Preceding unsigned comment added by Droprock211 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this guy a joke account or what???

Claiming real informaion must be joke edits because for whatever stupid and daft reason, he didn't believe them or didn't like them? What the hell sort of nonsense is going through his head???

Why did he put "Welcome to Wikipedia" and all that rubbish on my messages page?

The material is ALREADY SOURCED in the exact same page. Even if it wasn't, you could at least assume for just one damn second that just because it's a stranger on the internet, that they're not likely to be pulling something COMPLETELY OUT OF THEIR ASS.

If there was ANY place it was going to be, it was going to be right there on her blog. All you had to do was check her blog to see what it said.

Do you actually even KNOW ANYTHING about Michelle Malkin? Obviously not since you're pulling this out without even spending FIVE SECONDS to look at the source. That's what's wrong with Wikipedia, people and their STUPID popups undoing proper edits.

You're not going loads of stuff dude, you're tripping over yourself and being descontructive to wikipedia. Next time have a clue about what you're actually doing first.159.134.216.150 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did take a look at the source, but I missed the word "staged" in the block quote. I see someone else has already fixed it. Sorry that you were so upset by the removal. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SarahPalin.jpg

Obviously this is a free image, but I've used the wrong tag apparently. So instead of you helping and placing the proper tags, you'd rather go and have the image deleted? This kind of thing is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia. Thanks for your "contributions."
NewYork1956 (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the photo came from here. So it's not a Congressional photo or public domain, but copyrighted, I'm afraid. (Unless you know something about Alaska state government copyrights that I'm missing.) Videmus Omnia Talk 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resiliency

The Resilient Barnstar
For your resiliency and undying civility in the face of misunderstandings, nastiness, and even occasional malice, I award you this shiny new barnstar made of 100% recycled photons! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for keeping me up until 20 after 7 in the morning for something I really don't give a shit about. Probably the highlight of my weekend.
NewYork1956 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You know it is possible for you to go to bed without VO's permission, if you truly don't care. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor David Hughes

Unfortunately, he never defined what "licence type" - I asked if it was acceptable to use it here and he simply said it would be "fine". I did ask about other photos etc but he never got back to me from then onwards:

"Dear Gareth,

I think the picture is fine. It is one that Paul took for the physics 'rogues gallery', the row of pictures we put on the notice boards so students know who we are.

I have some much posher PR ones (the one on Google Image is one of these)

Am enjoying my retirement hugely. Am busy writing two books at the moment

All the very best


David" SheffGruff (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do - given that he hasn't responded to my initial reply and he's quite busy I suspect I may not get a response. When I have a little more time later this week I'll read through the guide you've posted to me and send something on to him to try and get a more specific term of agreement. SheffGruff (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Current projects"

I notice some of the articles in your list of "current projects" (e.g. Justina Vail Evans) have a portrait that you were able to obtain under a free license. Others, (e.g. Suzie Plakson) seem like good candidates, but do not yet have an image. Are some of these articles ones you were asked by the subject to improve? I can help with this, if it will encourage more free image licensing. Or are there specific problems that the subject is concerned about, where it would be better if I just left sleeping dogs lie? :) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch - yes, I actually just got e-mails from both of the people above. Mrs. Evans included a pic with a list of concerns that I already addressed (though the article could use expansion and sourcing), Ms. Plakson requested her article be improved without providing a photo (I told her I'd get back to her after doing some work on the article). (To be fair, it does give undue emphasis to her Star Trek work.) One of these days I need to quit making requests for a while and just work on cleaning up my "to-do" list. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 18:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Gee, an overemphasis on Star Trek on Wikipedia? Who'd have thought? ;-) Well, these are articles I can work on and get double-benefits: improved articles, and improved images. What a bargain! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many non-free images

Hey, VO. What's the name of the template for pages suspected of having too many non-free images? I can't remember. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{non-free}}. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References for pre-Internet book reviews

"Dekkappai-san" eh? I like the sound of that... Anyway. Brian Daley's Coramonde duology and John DeChancie's Skyway series? Never heard of them, so I can't think of any referencing right off-hand. Give me a day or so, and I'm sure I'll dig up something for you though. Dekkappai (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, V.O. Here are some quick search results, with some text: User:Dekkappai/Notes. (They may look a bit messy, but you can copy them from the "Edit" function.) Nothing specifically related to the two book series, but some useful information on the authors and other books, perhaps. Let me know when you've got this text so I can take it down off my page. I'll try to track down more print information over the next day or two. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem. Here are a couple of manual-references for contemporary reviews of books by Daley. They go backwards from 1989 to 1984. I'll add more in days to come. Hope it helps!
  • Doomfarers of Coramonde
    • Publishers Weekly, vol 243, Dec 9, 1988, p.27
  • Fall of the White Ship Avatar
    • Voice of Youth Advocates, vol. 10, Oct '87 p.176
    • Booklist, v.83, Jan 15 '87, p.753
    • Fantasy Review, vol. 10, April '87, p.36
    • Kliatt Young Adult Paperback Guide, v.21, Spring '87, p.22
    • Science Fiction Chronicle, vol. 8, March '87, p.46
  • Jinx on a Terran Inheritance
    • Booklist v.82, Dec '85, p.534
    • Fantasy Review vol. 9, Feb '86, p.19
    • Library Journal vol. 110 Dec '85, p.130
  • Requiem for a Ruler of Worlds
    • Booklist vol 81, July '85 p.1519
    • Kliatt vol 19, Fall '85, p.20
    • Library Journal, vol.110, May 15, '85 p.82
    • Science Fiction Chronicle vol 7, '85, p.45
  • The Dangerous Edge
    • Best Sellers, v.43, Oct '83 p.244
    • New Yorker v.59, Oct 3 '83. p.128
    • New York Times Book Review, Oct 16, 1983 p.32
    • Publishers Weekly vol.225, June 29, '84 p.103
    • Punch v.28, January 25, '84, p.52
    • West Coast Review of Books, Vol9, Nov '83 p.38
  • A Tapestry of Magics
    • Booklist vol.79, April '83 p.1013
    • Library Journal vol.108, Feb 15, '83, p.416
    • Science Fiction Review, vol.12, May '83, p.53
  • Tron
    • Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review, Sept '82 p.23
    • School Library Journal vol.9, Nov '82, p.98
    • Library Journal, vol.107 June 15, '82 p.1245
  • Han Solo & the Lost Legacy
    • Voice of Youth Advocates, vol.4, June '81, p.54
    • Booklist, vol.77, Sep 15, '80, p.98
  • Han Solo's Revenge
    • Booklist, vol.76, Dec 1, '79, p.540
    • Publisher's Weekly, vol.217, April 18, '80, p.88

Dekkappai (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Article naming advice

Not Kirill, but if you do go with a naming convention like 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash, then you should do it like this:

  • 1958 Armenian C-130 Crash
  • 1958 Russian C-130 Crash
  • 1958 American C-130 Crash
  • 1958 Armenian C-130 Fighter Attack
  • 1958 Russian C-130 Fighter Attack
  • 1958 American C-130 Fighter Attack
  • or something of the like. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...the various naming schemes can be confusing. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Article naming advice

Yes, I think following Cla68's lead here would be appropriate; you could use something like 1958 C-130 shootdown incident.

(Personally, I don't like putting the date first, and prefer to have it at the end of the title; but C-130 shootdown incident (1958) may be a bit too convoluted, while C-130 shootdown incident of 1958 seems overly pretentious.) Kirill 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your first suggestion sounds great for a working title, I'll go with that. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Print sourcing

Hi, V.O. Will those print-sources posted up above be useful? If so, I'll gather some more later, and add them to your Notes section. I got side-tracked today... Dekkappai (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 51 17 December 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication 
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee 
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam" 
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: Plants Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Score (magazine)
Dyanna Lauren
Avy Scott
Dr. T & the Women
Randy White (porn star)
Deidre Holland
Digital Playground
Scott-David Allen
Lucy Lee (Korean)
Adriana Sage
Bridgette Kerkove
Third Street Promenade
Starshina
Smoky Burgess
Vanessa Angel
Exotic dancer
Miguel Lopez
Julie Driscoll
Dirty talk
Cleanup
David Brock
Alicia Rhodes
Aiden Shaw
Merge
T'plana-hath
Jessica Lunsford
List of British Columbians
Add Sources
The Situation Room
Judy Star
Ted Matthews
Wikify
Mr. Marcus
Davies
Tammi Ann
Expand
It Happened at the World's Fair
The Doom Generation
Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username reports

When you report usernames to WP:UAA as "refers to a medical condition or disability", on what basis are you doing it? Where is that given as a reason to block, and what is it intended to accomplish? I simply don't understand, so maybe you could explain your reasoning. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that used to be specifically forbidden in WP:U, but it appears the policy has changed since I last read it. Feel free to disregard if this type of username is now considered to be acceptable. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39

Image:Wikipediaweeklylogo-1.png

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 06:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Thank you and Comment/Opinions needed

  • VO, I firstly wanted to thank you for the photo nomination. It looks as though it will not go through, oddly enough for the very things that make the photo great (and the things that I don't like about my own photo nobody's pointed out!). On a totally different note, though, I need your help. I seek an outside, unbiased and rational viewpoint. As you know, I (at least I think) can be very neutral in looking at Wiki stuff, but I'm concerned enough that I want backup (or correction!) on a couple small related issues.
  • There's an Image deletion debate on right now that I feel is unnecessary and not initiated in the best of faith. It's also related to an AfD (Vote for Deletion on an article that was once deleted (redirected) contrary to consensus and now has been expanded and even more referenced.
  • I don't mean to be a bother, and I appreciate your time and viewpoint. If you tell me I'm being irrational in these matters, I'll accept that, but I don't think that is the case. Please, when and if you get the chance, let me know what you think and feel free (please) weigh in on the issues. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC) :-)
Hey, VP...no prob on the nomination. I'm sorry the nom is not going better - I'm not a professional photographer, but I really like that particular photo. Oh, well.... Anyway, you're not being a bother, I took a look at the AfD and the IfD. I think the article should be kept, but I don't think there's as strong of a case for the image. Portraits of living notable people were the one example specifically addressed by the Wikimedia Foundation in their Licensing policy, which is what the NFCC are ultimately based on. I know there are sometimes exceptions granted, but usually this is done for cases where a free image cannot reasonably be expected (an example would be criminal fugitives or other people who go to extraordinary lengths to avoid publicity). On the flip side, once in a while the community seems to allow non-free images of performers to demonstrate a particular aspect of their work that a free image couldn't show, or if the person's appearance has significantly changed from when they first became notable - Dakota Fanning, as previously cited in this discussion, is an example - another I'm aware of is Anna Paquin. For Laurel McGoff, I'm just not sure here, since she is still apparently a public figure and her notable performance was recent enough that her appearance probably hasn't changed much. I tried finding a free image but couldn't turn up anything with my usual sources. The best bet for a free image would probably be to get in contact with her agent (maybe here? - IMDb Pro has a free trial period). I've probably rambled a little here and don't know if I was really that helpful. :\ Videmus Omnia Talk 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Always a help. I appreciate your comments on the article (glad I'm not off-base there) and the image (I recognize that is borderline). I wouldn't assert my photo for featured status, but I do like it a lot. That's ultimately the point of photography, right? Someone has to like it. Glad you do. VigilancePrime (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC) :-)

[edit] RE: Banned user

I reverted the edits of 91.108.230.229 as that is User:Pope Benjamin Lister, who is banned/blocked indef. See the IP's block log. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI

Hey come and swing by my website. Roxmysoxo::Talk To Me 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me, goofing off

Image:Videmus Omnia.jpg
Thanks for the PD images, Ms. Candy!

When I get bored, things like this just seem to happen. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh - thanks, gave me a good laugh this morning! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zac Efron 2007.jpg

Hello, I was referred by Quadell to you to get approval for Image:Zac Efron 2007.jpg. I sent permission to the OTRS system with an agreement from the author of the image. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks! --Dan LeveilleTALK 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Dan - I asked one of the Commons OTRS volunteers to pull the license details on the image, we'll see what we need to do to straighten out the license concerns. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been resolved, thanks to Riana - nice work getting the photo released under a free license! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

U:RFC is a masterpiece!! One of the most helpful essays I've seen on the project. I'm going try out some of those techniques on Flickr today (although I cringe at the idea of making my user page more professional). Thanks for sharing your techniques with the community!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I'm always glad to hear when someone gets some use out of the page - let me know how it goes, or if I can assist in any way! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request input, assistance as possible

VO, I wanted to ask for your thoughts and possible assistance in touching up and expanding the page Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. Based on your comments in some articles or deletion discussions in which we have both been a part, I believe that you may have a similar viewpoint and be better at explaining the purpose of the page, which is Precedent as it applies to Wikipedia. The essay is in its early form and needs continued expansion (with solid examples). If and when you have a few moments, please take a look at it and let us know what you think or help to build the page up more. Many Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC) :-) (Your help, Videmus, is always much appreciated, thank you.)

Hey, VP - I'm a little backlogged at the moment, but sure, I'll take a look at it. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Wow, thanks, that's super-cool! Videmus Omnia Talk 05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Really, V.O. Sign your damned comments. Might try edit-summarizing too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekkappai (talk • contribs)
Heh - looks like Howcheng's image-tagging script is broken - the userpage notices aren't getting signed. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that. But for the record, I didn't sign my post on purpose. So sue me. Dekkappai (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-heretic! I intend to bring this blasphemy up at your eventual request for adminship! Videmus Omnia Talk 05:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah jeez... I had a belly full of makkeolli last night, and a rip-roaring good time with some family and friends. I then made the mistake of logging on Wikipedia. I'm going to have to follow my footsteps around, hat in hand, and see how much trouble I stirred up. Glad to see my joking intentions were not taken wrong here anyway. Back to my normal, strictly by the books, no-nonsense self for now! Cheers, V.O. (And you wouldn't know a good cure for a nasty headache, would you?). Dekkappai (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I know exactly the thing to make you feel better - a nice big bowl of bosintang accompanied by a glass of warm soju. Should fix you right up! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no no no bosintang! Wife's family are strict Buddhists. Father-in-law made me vow never to touch the stuff if I was to marry his daughter. It was a sacrifice I was willing to make. Sometimes one must make these tough decisions in life... I'll pass on the soju too, until tonight at least... Dekkappai (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh - my wife is Filipina, and her father has no objection to well-prepared dog, but for some reason she has a horror of it and made me promise not to eat any. :) I made that sacrifice for the sake of peace in my household, as well (though it was hard). Videmus Omnia Talk 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Koreanfilmlist

Back to serious business: I see the poster of Arirang (1926 film) was removed from the Koreanfilmlist template as non-free fair use... I know that in Japan photographs published before '56 are pretty much public domain. See: Template:PD-Japan. Any idea how we can find out if there's a similar law in South Korea? I'll ask Korean editors also... Dekkappai (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find out - I'm also woefully overdue on a similar request for Argentinian film images from Ernst. I had better get cracking before SPECTRE assassins come to my house. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. V.O. Herr Blofeld says that before 1950 is PD there, but we'll probably need something more official than that. In the meantime, watch out for those flying, statue-decapitating derbies! Dekkappai (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey small world. I have a feeling that anything pre 1950 is public domain from Korea as a united country. It would be interesting to see if this is th case. Could you point us to a website that covers copywright law by country? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S oh wow you're wife is Filipina. Oh wow!! I always find Filipina women incredibly attractive (e.g Relic Hunter woman (Tia Carrere and Isabel Preysler. -you're a very lucky guy!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 18:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think men find Filipinas attractive for the same reason that they find jet fighters and sports cars attractive - they will kill you in a heartbeat if you don't show them the proper respect. :) - Videmus Omnia Talk 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing against Filipinas, V.O. but personally I find them attractive for the same reason I find Korean and Japanese women attractive... Jet fighters just don't do it for me. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL but I know what you mean Videmus. The three of us seem to share the same exotic tastes in women and in other areas. Strong women, Filipinas are they? In that case it makes them even more attractive don't ya think. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ernst - I've been married to my Filipina for over 20 years, and my marriage would never have survived if it wasn't for the fact that she was so strong, given the fact that I was gone so much. Thanks to her I have three great daughters that have never gotten in any trouble and who boss their boyfriends just as thoroughly as my wife has bossed me. ;) Too bad we can't ask Ferdinand Marcos just how matriarchal Filipino society is. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL perhaps we could have asked him what its like to own several thousand shoe factories at the same time!! How many shoes was Imdelda supposed to have? LOL ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems User talk:Appletrees has a lead on Korean law, V.O. I asked him about it HERE. He's a Korean editor, so you might want to communicate with him on the matter. Thanks again. Dekkappai (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm I see. Thats unfortunate. If it refers to the work of the director etc -you say it has to be fifty years after their death rather than fifty years after the release of the film?. i was sure we could get images like Image:Ayúdameavivir poster.jpg as pd old argentina -dated 1936. I think that was directed by José A. Ferreyra who died in 1943 so this can be public domain right? The thing is even many films of the 1940s and 1950s the directors often didn't die until the 80s or 90s. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaa I lost my message to you in an edit conflict. The producer of that film Alfredo P. Murúa died in 1990 -so this excludes it right? My thats strange and pretty damned awkward don't ya think -but I guess it has something to do with the creator of a film as a work of art right - which in this case includes director, producer, writer and probably cinematographer and editor too. In that case any images would be strictly limited. It can be so restrictive this free license can't it!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. It looks like those images will have to be fair use in most cases (with all the ass pain that entails) at whatever Wikimedia projects allow fair use. To be PD, it looks like we have to demonstrate that the writer/director/producers all died before 1958. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Looks like the Korean one is rather more straightforward. I see you also requested LERK to look into it in the commons although Appletrees seems to have found and created it. I think it might be a good idea to clarify the status on copywright expiration on film related images by country -it would be interesting to see what the policy is with countries such as Spain and France and Italy etc. Of course there is no rush and possibly several people could look into it but I think it is important to clear up the licenses on film as I feel certain many images which are currently declared as copywrighted on wikipedia are actually public domain and free for use across the wikimedia project . Thanks for your help anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

I have replied to your question. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)