User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Jul 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for User:Videmus Omnia/Archive (current talk page)
<< 1 Archive 40|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 39|< Archive 39]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 41|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 40|< Archive 40]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 42|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 41|< Archive 41]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 43|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 42|< Archive 42]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 44|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 43|< Archive 43]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 45|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 44|< Archive 44]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 46|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 45|< Archive 45]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 47|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 46|< Archive 46]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 48|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 47|< Archive 47]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 49|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 48|< Archive 48]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 50|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 49|< Archive 49]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 51|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 50|< Archive 50]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 52|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 51|< Archive 51]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 53|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 52|< Archive 52]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 54|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 53|< Archive 53]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 55|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 54|< Archive 54]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 56|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 55|< Archive 55]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 57|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 56|< Archive 56]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 58|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 57|< Archive 57]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 59|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 58|< Archive 58]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 60|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 59|< Archive 59]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 61|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 60|< Archive 60]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 62|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 61|< Archive 61]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 63|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 62|< Archive 62]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 64|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 63|< Archive 63]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 65|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 64|< Archive 64]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 66|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 65|< Archive 65]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 67|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 66|< Archive 66]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 68|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 67|< Archive 67]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 69|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 68|< Archive 68]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 70|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 69|< Archive 69]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 71|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 70|< Archive 70]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 72|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 71|< Archive 71]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 73|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 72|< Archive 72]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 74|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 73|< Archive 73]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 75|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 74|< Archive 74]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 76|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 75|< Archive 75]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 77|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 76|< Archive 76]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 78|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 77|< Archive 77]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 79|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 78|< Archive 78]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 80|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 79|< Archive 79]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 81|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 80|< Archive 80]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 82|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 81|< Archive 81]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 83|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 82|< Archive 82]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 84|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 83|< Archive 83]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 85|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 84|< Archive 84]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 86|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 85|< Archive 85]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 87|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 86|< Archive 86]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 88|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 87|< Archive 87]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 89|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 88|< Archive 88]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 90|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 89|< Archive 89]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 91|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 90|< Archive 90]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 92|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 91|< Archive 91]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 93|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 92|< Archive 92]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 94|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 93|< Archive 93]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 95|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 94|< Archive 94]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 96|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 95|< Archive 95]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 97|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 96|< Archive 96]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 98|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 97|< Archive 97]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 99|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 98|< Archive 98]]}}|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|Archive 100|{{Expansion depth limit exceeded|[[{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}:{{Expansion depth limit exceeded}}/Archive 99|< Archive 99]]}}

-->}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} || Jul 2007 ||

Contents

[edit] User:Collegeprowler

He has struck again. This editor should be blocked from editing articles from which he has a conflict of interest. Bearian 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick help on this, and other issues, at WP:COIN. Bearian 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No sweat! Videmus Omnia 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging

By failing to address the clearly stated reasons that "free" images of most of these models cannot be made, and by pasting the same text on my user page 43 time, your actions have all the markings of a bot. If I am actually communicating with a human being here, I would advise you to find a less space-wasting way to notify editors of your actions. I have reverted them at my talk page, and will repeat the reasons that "free" images cannot be made at the talk pages of the images whose rationales you apparently ignored. Regards. Dekkappai 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry about all the messages. The images were tagged by script (which also does the notifications). I didn't realize at first that so many of these images had been uploaded by the same person. My apologies again, by all means feel free to remove them. Rest assured, I'm not a bot. Videmus Omnia 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, Videmus. Glad you're not a bot. About the images-- Most of my editing is in the area of Japanese erotic cinema, and many of these articles were previously illustrated with inappropriate DVD/CD covers. Understanding at the time (along with a good percentage of Wiki-editors) that promophotos were acceptable, I spent a lot of time searching commercial sites for face-only portraits of these stars. I've seen the "promophoto" deletions going on around Wikipedia lately, so I have been expecting these images to go under scrutiny eventually. I do believe that "free" images of many of these performers cannot be made. One is dead, several have been retired over a decade, their managers are retired and the studios they worked for have closed... But that will be worked out at the image discussions. If they are deleted, I'm sure we can clear that hurdle, and the articles will be better for it eventually. As for the mass-pasting on my talk page. I don't like to delete good-faith additions, even at my talk page. Later on, I'll reformat your notifications into one notice with the image names in columns, just to keep the record straight. Regards. Dekkappai 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crowning moments

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)

[edit] Don't take it personally...

...but you should seriously get a life. If you just keep following me around and looking up Non-free content criteria crap, and then nominating my pictures for deletion, then there is something wrong with you. Have a nice day. -- SilvaStorm

Um, not following you around. You have a nice day too. Videmus Omnia 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Its just that you've been tagging a lot of my pictures lately. -- SilvaStorm
I went back and reviewed - I think it's because I went through the non-free media used in the Lost (TV series) article and the various articles for the series' characters to ensure we had good fair-use rationales. I certainly wasn't intending to stalk you in particular. Videmus Omnia 12:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to avoid "spam"

Hi -

An editor called Montco gave me your name and asked me to connect with you. We have a series of audiocasts, each of which briefly covers a telecommunications term or concept. It was recommended we link these into the relevant pages on Wikipedia. When I did so, they were removed for "COI" and "SPAM" reasons. Having reviewed your policies, I believe it was the fact that I linked to our blog page where there is a flash player to play them (instead of the audio file itself), and that the audio file has an intro and trailer that identify our company and invite registration to our blog and podcast series.

If we were to create audio files that excluded these promotions, and we linked the audio files directly (instead of the blog), would this still be consider spam/COI? If you want to see examples of the audio files I'm talking about, you can find them at podsnacks.com.

Thanks

Michel 3:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out later today - thanks for getting in touch with me. Videmus Omnia 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI tag on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

We were having some trouble with the inventor of AHP Thomas Saaty Template:TSaaty and his wife Template:RozannSaaty deleting criticisms to AHP and replacing it with advertising. The current version is not so much where the COI lies but in the changes the Saaty's have been making. I was looking for an appropriate tag but I guess I missed the mark by puting a vandalism warning tag on the article itself. I removed your tag because the current version is the one that existed before the COI problems. I'm open to any advice on better ways of addressing this. Thanks. Hubbardaie 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just watchlist the article and report any new problems at WP:COIN, like you already have. The administrators who frequent that board will warn and/or block should that become necessary. I left a 'uw-coi' message on the talk pages of the editors involved also. Videmus Omnia 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll do that.Hubbardaie 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg in Operation Wrath of God

User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at Talk:Operation_Wrath_of_God#Use_of_Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg_in_this_article so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I've been on Wikipedia for 5 years, and have received plenty of both honors and criticisms. But never until today have I received a barnstar for my comments on a touchy subject, from someone who disagreed with me. That shows character. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! And thanks for the compliment... Videmus Omnia 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Hello, Videmus Omnia. Could you please stop tagging images for speedy deletion because they lack a fair use rationale? Tagging these images with {{no rationale|month=June|day=25|year=2007}} places the image in a category such as Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 25 June 2007. Tagging them for speedy deletion is redundant and merely clogs Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with hundreds of images; an admin will clear the dated categories after 7 days. These deletions were put on hold until July 1, 2007, which has caused a backlog, but they have resumed. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Videmus Omnia 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scalzi

Wow, that was fast! I can't tell a lie, I knowingly and willingly made a change on Scalzi's page that was false. Scalzi is a jerk and treated Quatloo like crap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fred_Saberhagen) when Quatloo wouldn't accept his unverified source on Saberhagen's death, I wanted to give him a taste of his own medicine and maybe teach him why Wikipedia is so strict about verified sources. It was probably immature and undoubtedly wrong and is the only time I ever have or will do something like that, I'm really a good Wikier I swear :)Hexrei 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but please don't do that anymore, thanks. Things like this cause Wikipedia to get bad press (remember Sinbad?) Videmus Omnia 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Gottlieb

There is absolutely no copyright issue on the Lynn Gottlieb, which was rewritten in its entirety, with all necessary independent sources provided. The only apparent "copyright issue" is the fact that a release of any of the earlier material no longer present on the article. If there any genuine copyright violations, please specify them on the talk page, as required by Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_July_5/Articles, as stated in the template on the article page. Although it has been reworked, much of the copyvio text remains. I understand there's an assertion of permission, I'm just saying it needs to be verified via WP:OTRS. Videmus Omnia 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] model for fair use rationale for record albums

I added a fair use rationale to Image:TornBetweenTwoLovers.jpg You may wish to add a similar fair use rationale to any other album images that are missing one. --Eastmain 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scalzi again

WTF you edited the TALK PAGE? I brought up a valid point. It wasn't a personal attack, it was the truth, and it was a valid subject of discussion for people who might try to work on his page in the future.Hexrei 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not on any particular side, but the talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Please take your battle off-wiki, it doesn't belong here. Videmus Omnia 03:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did take it elsewhere, he just started censoring that elsewhere. I guess I could start a whole new site devoted to preserving the discussion he chooses to delete and thereby ensure that my side is heard, but I'm not that into helping his career. Anyway, sorry you're in the middle of this. I appreciate your lack of partisanship.Hexrei 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And by that I mean I won't mess with his pages anymore. Might egg his house though :PHexrei 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Videmus Omnia 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with Jam155.jpg

This is about Image:Jam155.jpg....I added both fair use rationale on page and also my reasons in favor of in non-content free criteria. I hope that meets your criteria posted in my talk page

Burnwelk 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - FYI, we don't normally accept this type of image on Wikipedia per the non-free content criteria, Item 1, because this individual is presumably still living and someone could make a free image of him. Are there any special cirumstances that apply here (i.e. some reason no free image can be made)? Videmus Omnia 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Kelli Maroney.JPG

Welcome, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. An image you have uploaded, Image:Kelli Maroney.JPG, was marked as having been released under a free license by the copyright holder, but no evidence of this release has been provided. If notice of the release is on the copyright holder's website, please link to it in the image summary. If the release is a response to a request for copyright permission, the full request and response must be forwarded to OTRS. If you need help in composing a request, the example requests for permission may be helpful. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The permission was forwarded to WP:OTRS. Videmus Omnia 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

PLease note Template:Filmrationale for use on film images and Template:Biorationale for deceased people after 1923. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - didn't know about those templates. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Control Relay.jpg Derating Factor.jpg

The two images that you have brought into question were created by me for use in the textbook principles of electronics. I am the exclusive holder of the copyright for these images and have released them into the public domain. Best regards,User:Carl142

Ah, that explains it. Could you please expand the source information a little so the copyright information is verifiable? Also, this has got some helpful info. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 00:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Elizabeth Winstead

No problem! Every now and then I look at recently uploaded images to see if I can be useful. I figured I'd post this one since I found it just before that actually happened, but didn't realize that it had only been up for a few minutes at the time. Thanks for the comment, I'm always glad to lend a hand. Hewinsj 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

After taking a look, be careful with those images. The Comicon one has all rights reserved, and the premier image lists no derivative uses. I don't mind, but there are some people on here that won't consider that meeting "free" use criteria. Hewinsj 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you check the image description page, I got GFDL licensing by e-mail directly from the photographer. The permission has been forwarded to WP:OTRS, they just take a while to update the image. I only upload images with no questions of copyright. Videmus Omnia 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Glad to see your on top of things. Hewinsj 05:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate speedy deletion tagging of images

Hello.

This post is in relation to your speedy deletion tagging of the following images:

And possibly many more.

I'd like to make two points about your actions:

  1. I think you are being very over-zealous in tagging these fair use images. It was very clear from the pages that use them, that they were being used in the correct manner. Technically the image pages did not contain a specific rationale for their use on each specific article, but rather than tagging them for speedy deletion you should have added that rationale yourself (as I have done). All you needed to do was copy'n'paste the rationale from a similar image page and edit it accordingly. Simply tagging them for deletion instead of fixing the oversight yourself is somewhat irresponsible.
  2. As has already been pointed out on your Talk page, it is inappropriate and somewhat disruptive to tag images for speedy deletion because they lack a fair use rationale. Fair use images without an obvious rationale should be tagged as {{no rationale}} instead (not as well as). Tagging them for speedy deletion is redundant and merely clogs Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with hundreds of images. If you are using a bot to add these speedy tags, please either modify the bot or stop using it.

—gorgan_almighty 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm disappointed with your use of the terms "inappropriate", "over-zealous", "irresponsible" and "disruptive" above, I ask you to voluntarily withdraw them. Any actions I took were in line with policy. So far as album cover rationales go, a) it's not my responsibility, but the uploader's, and b) I understand I'm probably in a minority opinion on this, but personally I believe that 99% of the album cover images on Wikipedia are merely decorative and don't contribute to the understanding of the subject in a way words cannot. An exception would be if the article actually contains commentary about the album artwork that the reader can't understand without an image. They're also probably the most abused non-free images on Wikipedia, being frequently used to illustrate not only the album, but articles on the various songs, the band itself, and discography lists, normally without any rationales for the various specific articles per WP:NFCC#10c. For example, see the non-free image gallery on Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine, which is not justified by any rationale and is likely a violation of content policy.
That said, I don't feel strongly enough about this to actively go out and seek deletion of every album cover image. If the uploader has at least attempted to justify inclusion per WP:NFCC, I generally leave it alone. But I'm not going to add rationales for images I don't feel are needed, especially when the uploaders have ignored obvious instructions that the rationales are required.
I get what you're saying about the redundant tags - until I got the message above, I didn't realize how gigantic the 'no rationale' backlog was. But I haven't put any more of those images into C:CSD since I saw that, even though what I was doing was in line with policy. It was obviously annoying deleting admins, so I knocked it off. And no, I'm not using any bot. Videmus Omnia 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The comments by gorgan_almighty seem to me exactly right. To reply by saying that you are just following policy (as you say elsewhere on this page) is like saying "I am only following orders". You are clearly violating the SPIRIT of Wikipedia by not adding the obviously-relevant rationale tags, which would be constructive and take just as much effort as adding all those destructive speedy-delete tags. These actions of yours are essentially acts of vandalism, no matter how much you try to justify them by saying that you are following policy. You are not contributing to Wikipedia. You are damaging Wikipedia by using the letter of "policy" to violate the spirit behind the policy. Please stop. Grimbergfriend 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did you create your user account solely to comment on my talk page? And honestly, I'm not a Nazi. The real damage to Wikipedia comes from users who added copyrighted material without fulfilling the legal requirements to protect the Foundation from claims of copyright infringement. Videmus Omnia 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
First, no one called you a Nazi, as far as I can remember; they called you a legalistic vandal, which is a very diffferent thing. Besides, your justification for your tagging is completely spurious: Wikipedia is not subject to legal sanctions simply because tags are missing on images that are in fact covered by fair use. No one can sue over the lack of a tag - only over actual violations. You keep tagging images that are not legally liable in any way whatever, and the legal status of which is not even remotely affected by the presence or absence of a tag. An image that is obviously covered under fair use (and which you could easily have labeled as such) is not legally liable because it lacks a tag labeling it as fair use. Again, your justification of vandalism is legally and morally spurious in every way, and it doesn't get any less spurious because you keep repeating it. And I notice that you've also used the completely diffferent justification that you think some images are merely decorative - which has nothing to do with legal liability. Now please just stop. Grimbergfriend 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:NFCC and WP:CSD#Images and media. This is policy, I didn't just make these up. Videmus Omnia 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I did not and would not refer to Videmus Omnia's actions as vandalism. I feel they are unhelpful and somewhat disruptive, possibly even a violation of WP:POINT. But they are not vandalism, because they were done in good faith. —gorgan_almighty 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Century (book)

Hi. I have removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Century (book). Speedy deletion criterion G11 applies only to cases of "blatant vandalism", which I do not feel is an accurate description of that article. If you still believe the page ought to be deleted, please {{prod}} it or nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please feel free to contact me if you disagree with my assessment or have any questions. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thanks for the note. Videmus Omnia 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Hi, could you help me? See this and my talk page. Good night, – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] FLOSS Weekly

Hey, I'm disputing that this article is not notable, so you should take this to AfD so we can seek wider consensus. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-07-11 21:33

Also, I was looking at your "free images" subpage. Is there a particular reason you're uploading these to Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons? It seems to me that it would be better to upload them there so that they can be used across all projects. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-11 21:37
I'll flag them {{Move to Commons}} once the OTRS folks process the licenses - I haven't got around to getting a Commons account yet. Thanks for the note on the podcast article. Videmus Omnia 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you got a ticket number for OTRS, I could take care of it. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-12 01:16
Haven't received any ticket numbers (I've just been using OTRS for permissions received for the past week or two). I've tagged the images on that page with the dates I received and forwarded the permissions. If you can take care of that, I'd be eternally grateful, thanks! Also would welcome feedback on whether I'm doing things correctly so I can make sure that 'help' page I'm creating has correct information. Thanks again! Videmus Omnia 01:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JenniferAnnCrecente.png

Is there anything that would need to be changed in the article to still link to the image when it is moved to Wikimedia Commons? Should I make any changes to naming, etc that would be beneficial? Thanks. Drew30319 03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the image will still be visible without renaming it (unless someone uploads another image with the same name on English Wikipedia). No changes should be necessary to the article. Moving it to the Commons will just make it available to other projects besides English Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

I see you have other messages on your talk page about OTRS permissions, so I don't want to push the point, but about how long do you estimate before ticket numbers appear on your images? -N 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just left a message for User:Mecu asking about that, he says the permissions-en queue is backlogged by about 400 e-mails. Videmus Omnia 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just got a flood of permissions, looks like someone got motivated and cleaned out the queue. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Futures in Biotech, Windows Weekly

I created these pages just for the sake of continuity of the TWiT articles. You're right, neither of the two are particularly important by themselves, I just didn't like the the red links in the TWiT template. If they must be deleted, then do so with all speed, the album art images too. vlad§inger tlk 02:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. If sources turn up showing notability, the articles can be recreated. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. vlad§inger tlk 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We got another one

Image:Daphne Official headshot.jpg

This one, the model uploaded herself and freely licensed without (apparently) any prodding from anyone. It's working! – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll fix the image description. I'm starting to build networks, too - once I've worked with one particular person and they see I'm for real, apparently they're telling their colleagues. I've got a couple e-mails from people I never contacted myself, who want to see their articles improved with images - I even talked to Michael Yon's attorney on the phone about free use donation of some of his combat photos from Iraq. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The_Blue_Meaning.jpg

Resolved (hopefully), as per the suggestion highlighted on the "fair use" guidelines. If anything else crops up, please let me know, but drop me an email! I've retired from Wikipedia so it may well take me some time to see my talk page...--—Chris (blather • contribs) 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing - thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] if I may?

Userboxes may not be your thing, but {{User USAFe7}} would be applicable.  :^) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, brother. :) Didn't realize anyone was watching my page. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing recently uploaded images and came across Image:Videmus Omnia 3.JPG which caught my eye because of the people in uniform; I followed back to you, the uploader. I'd also like to take this opportunity to shake your virtual wiki hand for both being an advocate of free content as well as being in the Air Force. Finding such a collection of similarity with somebody online is quite nice, and I will appreciate working on WP with you in the future. Cheers. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Airman pd_THOR! Have a fine Air Force day! :) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg

Wonderful! When you get the OTRS ticket number, please move this image to Commons. I believe this is a good candidate for featured picture. Good work! --Abu badali (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, brother! Unfortunately, OTRS is running a couple weeks behind. :( Videmus Omnia Talk 23:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Woo hoo! The OTRS folks cleared the backlog! Nominate away! Videmus Omnia Talk 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I nominated it myself here. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Amazingly, I had nominated the same image, before realizing that you had also done so, so I combined your and my noms. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, brother! Videmus Omnia Talk 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Garland Images

I was able to provide a fair use rationale for most of the images you tagged of Judy garland (the exception being two, really, the fan mag portrait of her and the 1960's one - still digging up those sources again and fair use rationales). --Ozgod 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Semi. It is awaiting development, but not abandoned. ed g2s • talk 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BruceWillisPoster01b.jpg

I took the darn thing myself in Prague. Next time, please do your research. See link: http://dayten.blogspot.com and http://privatenotebook.blogspot.com/ v/r Peter Rimar

Hi - I'm not disputing that you took the photo - the reason it was deleted is that it is a derivative work, since its central feature is the poster, which is presumably copyrighted by someone else. This would fall under fair use, not free content. I'm going to list it again, you're welcome to re-write the image description with a license and a fair-use rationale. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Hi, Please consider uploading your photos to the Wikimedia Commons (located here). This would allow your images to be used throughout other Wikimedia Foundation's sister projects. Thanks, Cacophony 00:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I always flag them as {{Move to Commons}} as soon as the OTRS permissions are processed - sorry, but I haven't got around to getting a Commons account yet (as I said further up on my talk page). Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parking

I have moved Reina/Official Bio to User:Videmus Omnia/sandbox which is a more appropriate "parking place". -- RHaworth 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh. It's not like I personally want to do anything with it. I've moved it a subpage of Talk:Reina, as I had previously said I would on the old talk page (I agree I should have done this to begin with). By the way, it wasn't very friendly of you to nuke the previous contents of my sandbox by moving this on top of it, but luckily there wasn't anything there I can't redo. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cisco Images

Yes, The emails were all forwarded.

Al --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 23:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Non-free reduced

In all of my time here on Wikipedia, I had never seen that template, thanks for doing it to the Nevermind image. — Moe ε 03:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it for the first time myself today, User:Fuzzy510 applied to some images I had tagged with {{fair use reduce}}. Pretty sweet. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deed to moon easier to get than images of Hello! Project artists.

Vid, regarding your comment to Quad about the image on W (Double You) and their individual members, please see WP:H!P Image Statement regarding Hello! Project artists and the total impossibility of obtaining free images of them. -- CJ Marsicano 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the essay - interesting. I was working with User:Dekkappai on a similar issue regarding retired Japanese porn stars. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wikia-screenshot.png

Thank's for taging my non free images. I forgot to add a fair use relation. In search for ideas on how I can explain the fair use I stubled to this one Image:Wikia-screenshot.png I don't believe that he made it himself, although he captured the image, I don't think he can hold the copyright for it. Could you take a look at it? --Steinninn 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I'm listing it as a possibly unfree image. And thanks for writing the fair use rationales. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeb, I just wasn't sure how to tag it. --Steinninn 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirsten Powers

In your previous reversions to Powers biography you reverted to POV phrases such as "Powers is usually very left-wing" (Despite the fact that she's pro-life, therefore making your claim laughable and your opinion ignorant) and claiming that the Fairness Doctrine impedes on Free Speech. Those are opinions. So I would like to welcome you to wikipedia and I hope your quickly learn how to differentiate between opinion and hard facts. One belongs in a wikipedia article. One does not.

And neither do your politics, which are obvious from your own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.195.232 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but how could you draw any conclusion about my political inclinations based on my userpage? I don't see anything political there. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So you have no response whatsoever to the fact that your edits reverting to phrases such as "very left-wing" and criticisms of the Fairness Doctrine are POV?--69.249.195.232 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - those weren't my words, but "very" should probably come out, it is POV without a source. But please don't cite sources from places like Media Matters or Salon.com, they are considered self-published and are not reliable. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Amy image at Flickr

I noticed you asked Tattiya to release her Air Force Amy picture at Flickr. Thanks. I had emailed Tattiya way back on June 6 about that, but she didn't respond to me until yesterday! (Unfortunately she only made it non-commercial. :-( ) Do you find that putting a comment on the image is more effective than sending email? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I normally try the comment thing first because it's less intrusive and they know exactly what image I'd like. If no response, I'll follow up with Flickr mail containing a GFDL license release. I've found that a lot of Flickr users don't mind releasing to use that way, but they don't want to change the CC licensing on the photo itself. I'll drop her an e-mail with the release if you like (I have a boilerplate for that). Videmus Omnia Talk 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! She changed it. I'm back up to 7/14, a 50% success/request rate, at User:AnonEMouse/Images. Nowhere near your impressive record, of course. Your image success list is awe inspiring.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free images

You might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images and its talk page. This hasn't been as active as it should be recently, but we have some ideas floating around anyway, which I'm sure you could contribute too. And please keep up the good work :)--Pharos 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's truly amazing, Tim. Every time I look, there are more great free images on your page! – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Do I get a barnstar yet? :-) Videmus Omnia Talk 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For wonderful work retrieving many excellent and free images for our articles. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

To use this template, add
[[The Original Barnstar]]<!-- WARNING: template loop detected --> to the talk page of the user you wish to award it to.

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Many_Rice-Davies_in_Private_Eye.JPG

Did you delete this? If you did, you plainly have no idea of the historical context and the fact that the person in question was famous for a very short period. The image I provided was a rare, irreplacebale one - about 45 years old. It is also well known (in Britain) that the magazine in question uses borrowed images itself. Still, it's Wikipedia's loss. I'm not sure whose interests you think you're serving! IXIA 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, I'm not an administrator. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
(yet.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lola Dutronic

Knowing your interest in asking for an image to the concerned individuals, here is something for you. I started an article about the Canadian electronica band Lola Dutronic. It seems from the history that one of the members of the band has edited the article himself ! So maybe they could go as far as providing a picture ? Hektor 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hektor, I sent them a request via MySpace message, will let you know how it goes. Also I'm sending you an a-mail about Maîtresse Françoise. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel engine photos

I want to object in the strongest terms about your deletion of the irish rail diesel engines photographs. What do you need as fair use rational? An essay?

It is impossible to obtain ready free images of most of these diesels as the bulk no longer exist having been scrapped between 30 and 40 years ago, as I clarified in my rational. Believe you me, I would take photos of them myself if I could.

Of those that do exist, they are all under canvass or under repair in closed workshops etc. hence the need to use archival photos.

Rather than just overzealously deleting, you might aid matters by suggesting what is required for you consider as "Fair use rational" rather than just trotting out the standard line of "go read the wiki rational". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawgz (talk • contribs)

I didn't delete the images (I'm not an administrator) but if I remember correctly, I tagged the pictures as replaceable per WP:NFCC#1 for the engines that still exist, because someone could take a free picture of them (or one could be requested from the workshops that are restoring them). Videmus Omnia Talk 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in deleting

I realize I am an unregistered user, but your deletion of my addition to the Michelle Malkin article on her comments about so called "anchor babies" appears to show a bias against what is common knowledge. You claimed I didn't cite a source, but I clearly linked to the article on jus soli which explains the concept at issue and further links to the American constitutional law and jurisprudence on the issue. I don't know your political leanings, but they appear to lean toward the right wing, and deleting because of that bias is patently improper.

I'm sorry, but you can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source. Please read the guidelines on verifiability, which is particularly critical in biographies of living persons. And yes, you're right, you have no idea what my political leanings are, so kindly keep your speculation to yourself, thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I went further to cite the specific constitutional amendment, which looks exactly the same on this site as it does on law.cornell.edu, Findlaw or any other cite. Your deletion stinks of purely biased editing. If you claim to be approaching this from an unbiased view, then why don't you leave the edit up and link to the Constitution and the Supreme Court case law instead?
You misunderstand. The problem is not the argument, the problem is that it's you who is making it. If, for instance, Janet Reno were to make this comment in regard to Malkin, and her comments were published in the Miami Herald, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But if you make that assertion on your own, without a published reference, it's original research. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
I hereby award you the Commons Ambassador Barnstar for your terrific work in obtaining free images and for teaching others how to do the same. The Wiki is a richer place because of you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well deserved barnstar, you inspired me to go (again) requesting images. See User:Garion96/Images (ordering of that page blatantly stolen from you). See if I can get it as full as User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No fair use rationale

I have addded one to Image:Wild Swans.jpg. Will you recind the red-template? If not, maybe you could word the fair-use rationale so that it is acceptable. Surely you would agree that a cover of any book has to be fair use because it is always copyrighted. John Smith's 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag, thanks for adding the rationale. I know that book covers normally always will fall under WP:NFCC, but they still require a detailed rationale per policy. Sometimes the book covers uploaded don't meet the criteria, but that one seems fine. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well you prompted me to tag another book cover I uploaded the same way, so you've made me make sure both are ok now. :) John Smith's 22:08, 20 July 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
Buffy Tyler
Michael Brandon
The Baxter
List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
Hair gel
Michael Gelman
Rick Lee (gay porn star)
Bomarc Missile Program
Susan Hart
Hair spray
The Women of Brewster Place (1989 television)
Avy Scott
Dyanna Lauren
J.W. King
Liverpool Playhouse
Amber Michaels
Houston Post
Casey Biggs
Adriana Sage
Cleanup
Alicia Rhodes
The Casualties
Sarah-Louise Platt
Merge
List of British Columbians
Cronulla Sharks All Time Playerlist
Penguin Book of Contemporary Verse (1918-1960)
Add Sources
List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States
Ted Matthews
Ginger Lynn
Wikify
Mr. Marcus
Dorian Gray
Kelly Family
Expand
Nancy Travis
Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada
Self-deprecation

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 01:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michele Merkin 1.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. That's rather a stunning picture and very impressive that you achieved a free licence for it. --kingboyk 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, working with article subjects can be a pain sometimes, but occasionally it's worth it. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual links

In reply to your question about how to find articles that link to an article, if I've understood the question correctly, you can just look at the "What links here" page for the article in question (look in the left navigation bar under "toolbox")... Valrith 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have mixed me up with someone else. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Thanks. Valrith 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image:MarykeHendrikse.jpg

You tagged one of my images as not having a source. I have added one. Please let me know if i followed the correct procedures. ;) thank you

I'll cut in here to tell you that it looks like you did great. :-) Thanks for uploading your images to Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Explodingcandy 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Ill Arafat image

I don't want to be a burden, but I actually have to leave to Israel in a few minutes and will not be able to respond. I just found the image on the Arabic wikipedia article of him. You can delete it if necessary and I'll try to fix it in three weeks when I return. Thank you Al Ameer son 12:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Al Ameer son

[edit] re:Requesting free content

Thanks for the link, I'll spread it to those working on WP:NONFREE violations and those adding rationales to fair use images, when I come across them. — Moe ε 13:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Golden Sun images

Noticing your non-free template on the page... If there is a problem with the number of images on the page, it seems it would be very hard to "fix" beyond removing the last three tiny pics toward the bottom. The page aims to be a Featured List like the character pages of Final Fantasy games, and while Characters of Final Fantasy VII has the same template and evidently deserves it with its sheer number of images, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII doesn't have the template apparently because it has less images (13), and that's the exact number of images the Golden Sun page would when the last three tiny pics are removed. If the problem extends beyond just removing three pics, could you give specific feedback on it? Thanks. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the template - once I took a second look, it makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, didn't expect you to turn around that fast. And fortunately all those images are properly sourced. Thanks and harmonious editing. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 06:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Turner

You think it has excessive non-free media now, I had to edit war for days with an IP before getting the article protected over the current level of non-free media and falsely tagged PD images in it. If you go back in the history, Quadell is the one who left it pretty much as is. You may want to have a word with him about what he considers appropriate levels of non-free media. -Nard 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I left it as is? I guess I'm not sure what you mean, N. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify my meaning, Quadell already removed a large number of non-free images from the article[1]. I'm not sure if he felt the rest complied with the policies or if he was just trying to apply some lube. By all means, excise most of the rest (but the black and white one of her in the 60's is probably fair use). -Nard 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll take another look at it - also, part of the reason I created the template is to encourage other editors on the article to learn about the policy and fix the problem themselves. Many of the people adding this stuff are acting in good faith and will correct the issue given a pointer or two. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bill Drummond at the 1992 Brits Awards.jpg

If it doesn't have a rationale for use in Bill Drummond, then remove it. But it already has a rationale for The KLF. 17Drew 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Before removing it, would like to give a chance for someone to add the rationale. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
How noble. This is achieving what? --kingboyk 21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The appropriate way would be to leave a message at the article's talk page, not to inappropriately tag the image for complete deletion. 17Drew 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Compliance with policy. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a deletion tag in this case - it says "or removed from some uses". If the rationale is good for a particular article you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:Disputed non-free images is listed as one of several "Image deletion categories" and is in the Category:Administrative backlog. If an image doesn't have a fair use rationale for an article, it should be removed, commented out, etc. from the article; an administrator is not needed to removed images from an article. 17Drew 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, just wanting to give a chance to add rationales. A good administrator reviewing the image wouldn't delete it in this case, and, if he did, it could be undeleted. You're welcome to remove it from noncompliant usages also, if you like. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait

Hold your horses pal! Is there any reason why you are picking on KLF images (which have excellent rationales compared to most) and might you extend me the courtesy of coming to me first with the problem rather than leaving template litter all over the place?! You can see that I'm online from my contribs.

What exactly is wrong with our rationales and how do you propose fixing it? --kingboyk 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template litter? They're just tags. The images are being used in places which do not have separate rationales written per WP:NFCC#10c. The template is just a notice that the images can be removed from usage in those places unless rationales are written, that's all. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You could have come to me and said "hey Kingboyk, there's a load of images here which need some attention", rather than leaving me a sh*tload of boilerplate messages and filling my watchlist up with image edits. That's what I mean by template litter.
Furthermore, why are you picking on these images which - I would contend - are at least borderline acceptable in their rationales already when there are thousands of images out there which don't have any rationales at all? I'm just interested to know how you came to be tagging so many things that I have touched, that's all, when these are far from being the worst offenders... --kingboyk 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, so I have to make a fair use rationale for each usage, even if the rationale is mostly the same? No idea what that achieves or how it's a good use of my time but I will do it. You needn't tag any more KLF images, I will look through all of them. Thanks. --kingboyk 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, sounds good, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec)See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I could definitely use some help in fixing other noncompliant images, if you're interested. The reason you got so many notices at once was that I was looking at the KLF article. Sorry for all the templates, I use a monobook script to tag images and didn't know you were online. If you don't like that stuff on your talk page just delete it. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to quote WP pages at me :) Nonetheless, I maintain that you picked a strange starting place, as that article has already undergone FA scrutiny and even won an award at last year's Wikimania. I had to wonder if I was being picked on for being a bit outspoken about fair use of album covers (I consider the current drive against them to be a total and utter waste of time, and believe we should be able to use boilerplate rationales for album covers since they are so blatantly fair to use) but you've satisfied me that isn't the case. Now, I'm going to trawl through the KLF images category, please message me tommorow if there's anything not up to scratch. Cheers. --kingboyk 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
Sounds good. Trust me, I never heard of you before today and wasn't picking on you. Unfortunately the standards have changed since this was picked as a featured article. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that too :) I'll let you get on with your work now, and I need to try and finish this category before bedtime (soon!) --kingboyk 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm laughing. Sorry about that, and all my best. Back to obtaining free content! Videmus Omnia Talk 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few, and will attend to the rest tommorow. Cheers. --kingboyk 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sada Abe

Thanks for the help there, VO. The whole thing will turn out for the good, I think, since what little I've read of this book so far is fascinating. It'll provide a good basis for doing a lot more work on the article. Cheers! Dekkappai 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mariah Carey

Hi there. You left a tag on the Mariah Carey page ([2]), stating that images/samples were incorrectly used and/or were excessive. Would you mind explaining this on the article's talk page? In my opinion, the editors of the articles have been very careful when adding non-free content. Orane (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I removed the tag - I've seen articles that are a lot worse. I do wish there were more of an attempt to include free content, though. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)