User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Oct 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: Nice find!

Thanks, flickr never disappoints. Any help in identifying and uploading these photos will be greatly appreciated. I haven't worked with WP:P* before, so if there's some sort of noticeboard or talk page for adding links to similar collections, I'd be happy to bring up all future finds there. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mbgq.jpg

Stop giving orders and do yourself what you're suggesting. --Barateiro 21:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? Videmus Omnia Talk 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:12fukuda.jpg has no details ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! :)

Thanks for watching over the stuff at my talk page while I was away for the weekend, dear Tim! :) With you as my Guardian Angel, I shall fear no evil ;) Now go and check your mail, sweetie! love, Phaedriel - 06:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clara Morgane

I am in awe that you obtained such a nice picture of Clara Morgane. I have interwikied it. I keep in mind that you asked me to do some translation. I am a bit overwhelmed these days, but I remember. I think that the example of Clara could convince other French stars to do likewise (Brigitte Lahaie ? ) PS: I see you want to expand Midori, I am a great fan of her and got to attend to one of here classes when I was in Vancouver. Hektor 12:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I will sure do my utmost. Maybe it will be ok like with Maîtresse Françoise. I think the picture is really classy and glamorous and its inclusion in wikipedia can only be profitable for this actress. It is featured-image class and also could illustrate corset maybe ? Hektor 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

do tell me why me having permission from the band to use any of their images is not good enough, if i need certain documentation, or a certain template...please point me the way, but please explain this to me! Fanofranz 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the main problem is that you need a copyright tag (WP:ICT), which would probably be {{non-free album cover}}. You'll also need a use rationale for each copyrighted image you use, see WP:NFC and WP:FURG for policy and guidance on this. I'm sorry, but proper usage of copyrighted material here can be complex. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image rights

Since the image of me you have posted (a) does not have proper rights, and (b) has been removed from the Where's George? article, could you please remove it from Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and anywhere else you may have posted it. Thank you. Henryhank 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing some checking - keep in mind that a license can't be retroactively rescinded once issued, and the photo was previously licensed under {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} until you contacted the photographer. Also, just because we don't currently have an article on you doesn't mean that will always be the case. That said, I asked for an opinion from an admin whose opinion I trust on issues like this. I'll let you know as soon as I figure out the right way forward. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've requested that a site admin delete the photo, this is a courtesy to respect your wishes and those of the photographer. Best wishes - Videmus Omnia Talk 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The photographer didn't have my permission or a release from me to post that photo in the first place. Henryhank 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations public domain as an image license category

This seems to have gone away. Is it completely discouraged now, or does it fall into some other use category? Novickas 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the images would have to be used under fair use rules. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WT:WPSPAM postings

Hi Tim. Could you please notify the users you report to WT:WPSPAM that their link-additions are discussed there (especially logged in users and apparently stable IPs). I just pulled an item from the archive this morning of someone who was slowly spamming references (now already for 2 months) but did not receive one single warning. I generally warn a user first, and when there is no response, I report to WT:WPSPAM (or blacklist it on AntiSpamBot) (except when the spamming is to a particularly bad link or done in a bad way, in which AntiSpamBot or blacklisting is done directly). I know it is just a courtesy, but at least the user knows then that they are being monitored, and some actually change their style after such a warning. Cheers, see you around, and keep up the good work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, Dirk, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quick thank you for the permission request guide

Just successfully obtained my first permission for use of an image. And public domain at that. Sure, it may not be as pretty as some of the ones you tend to get, but every little bit helps ... :-) --Pekaje 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! You know I actually make requests for images from all kinds of people, but for some reason it's the models and porn stars who tend to reply. I guess it's probably because they make their living from their appearance. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD about the Wikipedia:WikiProject_ROMacedonia

Hi, I noticed you voted for the project deletion. I'm sorry I noticed this thing a little bit late, please review my comments on the MfD page here and also here, I think we are going to make a big mistake if we delete a whole project because of the To do page dispute. I'm open for discussion. MatriX 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of my page

Hello. My page "Ross MacLachlan" was just deleted. I created the page by using the template of another similar style musician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kaeshammer. I also looked at other band templates like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_stones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles I notice that all of these bands put in a link to their external site so I did the same. I realize now after reading your External Links policy that links to a personal site on other Wikipedia pages are not acceptable, however I thought because I was linking to music samples with no obligation to purchase, it would be okay: http://www.notjustragtime.com/samples.php

As a sidenote, I've been playing and composing ragtime and boogie-woogie for 25 years.

What can I do to have my own page reinstated like that of the bands above mentioned? Your comments would be appreciated. Ross MacLachlan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmaclachlan (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ross - please see the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. The article should show how you meet these guidelines, this will prevent a speedy deletion. However, I should discourage you from writing an article on yourself, it's not recommended per our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines. Best wishes - Videmus Omnia Talk 18:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and reading materials. I will follow the guidelines suggested for any future posts. --Rmaclachlan 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link please

I cannot find Ryulong's Rfc. I missed it completely, it must have been when I was out sick or otherwise distracted - do you have a link pls? thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh sheesh, I tried that.. must have typod his name. Thanks for giving the link without commentary, that was very kind of you. puppy goes off blushing to read the clearly named rfc KillerChihuahua?!? 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Happens to the best of us. :) I sometimes mix up my kids' names and am never allowed to forget it. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
lol, you too? I used to quote Bill Cosby to them: 'you live here, and I'll find out who you are.' of course that doesn't apply now that I only have one left at home. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've posted some thoughts at User talk:Ryulong that may (or may not) be of interest. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I replied there, thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 39 24 September 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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. R Delivery Bot 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryulong

His removing himself from the category doesn't really mean as much as you seem to think it does. Even if he was in the category, and even if there was a "successful" recall, he could simply decline to give up the admin bit. It's voluntary. Friday (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, it's apparently a completely useless category. (Well, it was useful to Ryulong in his RFA, but that's about it.) Videmus Omnia Talk 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright concern

Hello again. I saw these images used on the reference desk and checked the licensing. They are both released as free images except I'm a little concerned that both of these images have logos in that are probably owned by the respective companies. What do you think?

Seraphim Whipp 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it - I think they're fine though. The inclusion of the logo is incidental to the photograph of the product. I would tag them both with {{trademark}} and let it go at that. Thanks again for helping out with the non-free images! Videmus Omnia Talk 18:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I really should get more done... Thanks for your help! :-)
Seraphim Whipp 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious

Brazil. Hacker. Obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.12.216 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Msn2.png, Image:Stars_Are_Blind_music_video.jpg and Image:Confessions_of_an_Heiress.jpg

I have added fair use rationale for these images: Image:Msn2.png, Image:Stars_Are_Blind_music_video.jpg and Image:Confessions_of_an_Heiress.jpg.

Have a nice day :D. John Biancato talk 15:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 15:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cascading protection

For your examination, the following pages have cascading protection and which affects all pages listed on them:

[edit] Overdue apology

Because I'm the only one in your block log, here goes:

  • I'm sorry that I initially blocked you in mid-June for perceived sockpuppetry for which I was completely wrong.
  • I'm sorry for the way I acted towards you when you came to me on IRC to request an unblock.
  • I'm sorry for having blocked you for your much needed work in checking copyrights on images, but still utilizing the same message well over 100 times for three administrators, and not having warned you beforehand.
  • I'm sorry for being really defensive the past couple of days, and accusing you of acting in bad faith.

So, let's let what happened in the past be just that, and work to improve this encyclopedia in the ways we each know how.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hello Videmus Omnia/Archive. You have new messages from ArielGold at User talk:ArielGold#COI template.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.
Thank you so much for the pretty blue barnstar, Videmus! I'm really glad you like the variety of templates, and if you'd like your own, I'd be more than happy to make you some! Ariel♥Gold 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] overuse of non-free images

Hey, Viddy. What was that template for articles with more non-free image than could reasonably pass NFCC#3? I came across Johnny 5, but forgot how to tag it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell - it's {{non-free}}. Cheers! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Keane-On a Day Like Today.ogg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexz Johnson Picture

I see that this has been flagged for speedy deletion because of potential copyright concerns.

As far as I can tell, the picture was taken by the proprietor of an Alexz Johnson web site in Toronto, and is probably OK on the copyright. But I'll check into this further and seek proof. I have asked the originator to upload a high-res version, which should be available if it was taken with a digital camera.

I'm the main author of the text for the Alexz Johnson article, and have no involvement with the picture, except for the fact that I think it's a good picture, and that it adds a lot to the article.

In due course, I'll be getting other pictures from Epitome Pictures, the producers of Instant Star, under a Creative Commons licence, with documentary proof.

As I mentioned, I'll look further into the copyright status of the picture you flagged, and will update you on what I find.

User:JD_Fan 29 Sept 07

Thanks, I appreciate it. I've been seeing a lot of copyvio photos being uploaded to illustrate that article, most of them stolen from her MySpace page. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Note on Alexz Johnson Picture

OK, I was able to chase down the source of the picture. The only place where it has appeared, as far as I can tell, is on the web site of the person who uploaded it and who claims that it is hers - a claim that I am inclined to believe for the time being.

Here's my note on all this.

Let's give this a bit of time before any action to delete this photo. As I mentioned, if the uploader doesn't get back to me soon, I will check it out with CTV and the producers of the show.

JD Fan 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks for staying on top of this. The best thing would be for the photographer to contact OTRS with a written permission. One thing that makes me a little skeptical is the lack of camera metadata on the photo, but that doesn't always mean the photo is not legit. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 40 1 October 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox" News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST
Automatically delivered by COBot 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Victorias-secret-embrace.JPG

There is no guideline during upload what size it should be on. Please enlighten me since I am not very familiar with image guidelines. Number1spygirl 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally for non-free images the guideline is the size needed for display in the article, or 0.1 megapixels, whichever is larger. You shouldn't need to resize it yourself, there are several volunteers with decent graphics software who normally work the resize requests. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messages to User:Collard

Just a heads-up - Collard wasn't the original uploader of those Enterprise pics, he just does a lot of image resizing. You may want to check the image history to find the real uploader(s). Good find on the free pics, by the way. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting around to it, leaving them one at a time. Thanks for the heads up, though, Oh, and you'd be amazed how many good pictures the government has on actors. I just overhauled the image description page for Image:PatrickStewart2004-08-03.jpg. Taric25 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging Image:Expander.png

Betacommandbot tagged it as disputed rationale, which is wrong since it's free. You changed that to a "no source" tag, but it's a free image. Is there a documented requirement that free images must explicitly provide a source? In any case, the source of that image is clear enough: it's a screenshot of a particular free program. EdC removed the no source tag and I agree with that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:IUP says that images need to have a source, this is so the copyright status can be verified by others (as the 'no source' tag says). It should be sufficient to specify what software this is a screenshot of (see WP:IUP rule of thumb #2). Videmus Omnia Talk 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, looks like he specified the source when he removed the tag. I reformatted it into the {{Information}} template. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast replies. I asked because I just looked through IUP yesterday and was unable to find any firm requirement for a source (there is an explicit requirement of sources for nonfree images at WP:NFCC#10). "Rule of thumb" may be the problem - I would interpret that phrase to mean "suggestion", not "requirement", and many of the bullets in that section are actually suggestions, or are vague enough to be nonactionable. I have generally not added much information for GPL images I create and upload myself. I think the issue here is that IUP needs to be more clear about the source requirement, if there actually is one in practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the main thing to keep in mind is that someone has to be able to verify the image is free. If you specify the software the screenshot comes from, and someone can Google that software and find out that it's free, that should satisfy the requirement. You're right, the policy could use some clarification. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randall images

Hi Videmus. I just recieved about 20 bot messages for Image:RandallHopkirk10.jpg and th eothers. Can you see a problem with this 10 point rationale? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they were just missing the article title in which they were to be used. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Can you please tell User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images that the Bollywood blog images are legal. It seems to have begun tagging new uploaded images thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm getting tired of receiving bot messages for Randall and Hopkirk. What is wrong with Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg ? Please respond on my talk page thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Right so it is the name that is needed then?. Because it certainly meets the 10 point rationale. I just don't want to be drilled a 50 kb beta bot command for the tagging again . Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for a way to do that - I knew I could somehow. Could you add this for Template:Filmrationale - its just I do so much work on here i need it to be as efficient as possible and not have to expect bot messages again. Could you add it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don;t think so its just a long term problem that needs sorting. All I need it a Rationale for fair use in ..... title for this rationale so I can add the title where appropriate on each page and it not affect the actual template. Whatever you can do to rectify the problem would be superb ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

E.g [1] - how can I modify it so I can add the relevant title in the space on each image and it not affect the template each time? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is to convert it to something like Template:Non-free use rationale but requires minumum of effort to add the title etc. So the template will give automatic details of the ten point rationale and terms of use etc in this nice looking box. PLease try to do something this evening thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have in mind but at present this template is in the form of a nav box. PLease can you get this to be recxognized by the bot and please help convert it to whatever. All I want is a box I can copy everytime and just add the titles source to it 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e
Non-free film-related media rationale
Rationale for fair use in The Bugle Sounds
Description:

Poster for The Bugle Sounds 1942.
Source:
Rationale for use on wikipedia:

1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject.
2.The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product.
3.The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy.
4.The image has been published outside Wikipedia; see source above.
5.The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
6.The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
7.The image is used in the article wiki-linked in the section title.
8.The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself.
9.The image is used in the article namespace.
10.The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder.
Resolution:

The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.
Replaceable?:

As a film poster, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the images from the movie poster would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary.
Compatibility with wikipedia?:

Use of the film poster in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

HI Tim you haven't answered my question. If you think the rationale I have added to Image:Una giornata particolare).jpg is good, I can continue uploading images with a box like this. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK tanks. I tried to have a go at converting it to a template with parameters but got too confusing. If my current design as a navigation plate stylewhich gives a full rationale and cites the article and date etc prevents the bot from drilling me messages this is all I want. Any editor looking at that can't contact me about it as invalid now . Let me know if you have any further developments Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PD-UA images

Your retagging of PD images will be reverted as disruption. talk first, tag second. --Irpen 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That commons gallery

Aha! I think I found out what's going on on that porn star's gallery. The user is the person in question. Here: [2]. I have no idea what's the appropriate response, though. But the page is protected for now. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it's someone who thinks they're helping the person in question - Sasha Grey's username is User:Madjabuds (though I think she also used some socks when that username got blocked for vandalism on Commons.) I've corresponded with her via MySpace - she doesn't care about the other photos being present on Commons so long as the one she donated is used on the article. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Weird. I feel like you're our "Ambassador to the stars", Wikipedia's representative to those alien creatures we call "celebrities". Or maybe you're more of a naturalist, trying to understand their strange behavior, social customs, courtship displays and rituals. "This vandalism looks like celebrity spoor -- one was here less than an hour ago." :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh - most of the "stars" I correspond with are of a pretty low order of magnitude...I remember how cool I thought it was the first time I got a response from one (it was Kelli Maroney) but now it's just routine...and some of them are downright annoying.
So are you saying I'm the Steve Irwin of B- and C-list celebrities? Crikey - I hope I don't share his fate! :) Videmus Omnia Talk 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Abbundando.jpg

Regarding the status of Image:Abbundando.jpg, I have left a message at the image's talk page. Please note, this image is a mugshot and falls into public domain. The copyright holder has been expressly stated as the New York Police Department in the image summery, and fuffils the criteria listed in {{mugshot}}. 71.184.39.125 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of that, but why do you keep removing the {{non-free reduced}} tag? Videmus Omnia Talk 12:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. In fact, you seem to be the big cheese at WP:FUR. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5. I have contacted many page participants and think you should keep an eye on this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Following your request I've removed the nonfree images from my user page. I don't get it why rules apply to some images and not to others, even if they're all in the same category comic covers or panels. I usually provide enought information but some of my images still get deleted. Copycat989 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Quickimgdelete bug

Hi! I just noticed your problem on Howcheng's talk page. While I can't fix the template immediately, I can offer you a simple workaround: in URLs which have an equals sign in them, replace each = with = . That way the template doesn't get confused by the equals (which it tries to associate with a parameter) while retaining a viable URL. Hope this helps you out. ObfuscatePenguin 03:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at it properly, the problem is with the underlying parser functions and their treatment of =, rather than with the template; it was already capable of handling URLs with = in them, but instructions were lacking, so I've provided some instead of even thinking about messing with the deep-level juju of the parser functions. Basically, you don't need to replace each = with =, so long as you add url= before the URL, which, thankfully, is much easier. ObfuscatePenguin 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll try that - thank you! Videmus Omnia Talk 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

[3] Just left a comment on the page you might like to read. :) Jmlk17 03:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my pics

Why are you deleting all the pics that I have uploaded?

get a life man

Mercenary2k 10:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes...

I get the message. You can leave me alone now and I'll see if I can find out more about the copyright of the 19 images previously of no source. jnothman talk 14:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delete request

Hi! Could you delete picture please? I don't have enough privileges to delete it myself. And also if you're an admin I would like to ask you to delete my userpage too. I'm kind of done with this fascist wikipedia. Copycat989 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: If you're not an admin could you please direct me to one. Thanks.

Yeah image deletions policy sucks. Anyway it was fun while it lasted. A tag and a description is enought by my standards. See ya' Copycat989 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks. Copycat989 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

I've updated the Project Spam page you sent me. I'm not trying to spam anyone, I just thought the interviews/articles in question were helpful resources and so I added the links. There's more explanation on the page, but if you really feel that the links don't add anything to the page, feel free to get rid of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.170 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JPEG crusader bot?

I was curious - have you ever considered a JPEG crusader bot to convert photographic GIFs that should be JPEG format? Or are you strictly a PNG fan? :) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not, because that would lose a bunch of image quality on top of the massive quality loss by saving photographs in GIF in the first place. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your responses to messages on my talk

Hi, I've been a bit sloppy lately about responding to queries (e.g. "why did you delete my image?") on my talk page. It would probably look politer if I stayed away from Wikipedia completely while going slow on responding to talk page questions, so that people couldn't see I was online while I was ignoring them. Actually, I've got a few real life issues on my mind at the moment, and I find that I have time for edits that don't take a lot of creativity, while I postpone answering questions that require me to research something and compose an answer. I just want to say that I very much appreciate the way you've recently been helping out when someone asks a question at my talk page. (And Quadell, if you're watching this page, I extend my thanks to you as well.) I hope to get back into the habit quite soon of answering questions promptly, but it is a bit of a relief to get up in the morning or to come home in the evening and see a question on my page has already been answered by you. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems - happy to help. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoa!

Hold your horse buddy. I was looking into the military insignia issue in my upload log :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'm trying to clean up the licensing issues for images using the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} template. I'll hold off for now. Cheers - Videmus Omnia Talk 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Srilanka-police 16.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 15.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 14.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 13.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 12.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 11.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 10.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 09.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 08.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 07.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 06.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 05.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 04.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 03.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 02.gif
  • Image:Srilanka-police 01.gif


Yeah I see that and thanks for your patience. I accept that there was a copyright violation regarding the Air force and Navy pics. But I the one who create Commissioned Officer ranks of Military ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Army. If you look closer to this page then you will notice what I'm talking about. If you are going to delete all my military insignia images, then I would like you to recommend to delete my above mentioned pics too. Happy editing --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. What if I change my military rank pics into fairuse as this one? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lahiru - the problem with that particular image is that it's copyvio from here (the filename is even the same). It might be valid if an equivalent image came from a Chinese government source as opposed to uniforminsignia.net (which claims copyright on its images) - I need to do some research on Chinese copyright. It may even be PD coming from the right source. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well Tim my prob is non of the Sri Lankan forces are allow their stuff to the public for free due to the danger of misuse by their opponents. But I can upload these pics [4][5]as fairuse but non of these are not good in quality wise as the uniforminsignia.net once. Luckily I have made my self the Sri Lankan Army's Commissioned Officer ranks, but I didn't had any free time to create others. What shall I do? May I give up all my military rank pics? or change into the fairuse because there is no free or good quality images available in the cyber space? Awaiting your reply. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If the rank insignia themselves are copyrighted, and no free equivalant can be made without being a derivative work, then you should have a case to use the {{Non-free symbol}} license. I would just make sure that the fair use rationale specifies why the images are not replaceable with free ones. (Just my opinion - I'm afraid I'm no expert on international copyright law.) Videmus Omnia Talk 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. Then I'll change my images into {{Non-free symbol}} to keep those without getting deleted. Surely I'll set the fair use rationale as you said. Thanks for your replying to my messages and I appreciate your kindness. Happy editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to figure out why, if he created the images on commons, he attributed them to http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=171&sid=329 when he originally uploaded them to Wikipedia. Any clue? -- But|seriously|folks  08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I replied here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badly tagged image

I just wanted to point out that Shepherd Book's photo was sourced and fair-use-rationaled when you tagged it. --SarekOfVulcan 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no source URL and no evidence of previous publication outside Wikipedia per WP:NFCC#4. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, pictures are occasionally published offline, I've heard.--SarekOfVulcan 05:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be of interest to the pair of you. The source is mentioned in the upload details in the file history section:

http://www.foxhome.com/firefly/main.html (click on "cast"/"Book")

(although, strictly speaking, one should click on "Ron Glass" instead of "Book", as the character name isn't currently listed). It would not take a huge amount of work to include that somewhere more visible. --Scathlock 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to step away from this one, don't feel like a fight with Browncoats right now. But be aware the publicity photos will likely be eventually challenged per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4 - virtually all other series "publicity photos" from other series like Star Trek are already gone. I just don't have the energy to spend on this now. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Fight? I merely offered info on the source URL, which I assumed was fairly evident from the fact that I offered info on the source URL. I have nothing invested in whether the image stays or goes. --Scathlock 10:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demolition man

Hi Videmus. Done it. ou know that any images I have uploaded in the last few weeks I have always added a rationale but there are some missing where I have uploaded quickly from a while back. Let me know which images require the rationale that you come across -don;t worry about giving me the full message each time -just give me a list of image titles that you come across or something and I;ll be happy to add the rationale . All the best and hope you arr well (I'm not I had a bad curry last night and am feeling sick!) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ernst. Once I saw it was you I intended just to fix it myself, but you were too fast for me, :) Videmus Omnia Talk 22:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. We are having some difficulty with User:Hindu-Boar who has made attempts to vandalise the Bollywood blog licensing templates and doing his best to try to make out it is false and invalid. Is it possible you could try to inform him that the agreement has indeed been validated by several trusted people and is not the major problem that he thinks it is. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if anything we need a link in the template to the filed agreement to stop such people questioning it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Hi Tim, apologies for not answering your mail earlier! I'm one of those annoying people who needs to be prodded about these things, very sorry. Replied now. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is this referring to? Videmus Omnia Talk 21:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what he is what he is referring to, but if it is referring to your recent criticism of admin behavior I should point out to "Arbiteroftruth" that legitimate criticisms about on-wiki actions have never been considered a NPA violation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Christ, what next? I'm out of here. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it has to do with User_talk:Calliopejen1#Barnstar_for_Abu_Badali. Abu Badali spent his time nominating questionably licensed images for deletion, something which Videmus Omnia also does at times. Abu Badali got a lot of heat for this; something which VO also sometimes gets. A key difference, of course, is that Videmus Omnia has added a great deal by getting a treasure trove of completely free images released. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Omnia, unless this personal attack warning is explained to you better, I would not concern yourself too much about it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just a little disgusted due to this and some of the other messages above. Took a break for a couple days. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deprecated license

I don't know the proper license for these images. A lot of these Polish rank insignia seem to have been collected from the Polish Wikipedia. Just delete them all. They've got better ones now, and these aren't being used. Jecowa 21:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I replaced all the Polish naval rank insignia with free svgs from commons. I looked for similar images to replace the Polish air and land forces' rank insignia images, but I have not been able to find any. Jecowa 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whoa

The red carpet, unfurled to welcome VO back from his wikibreak! – Quadell (talk) (random)
The red carpet, unfurled to welcome VO back from his wikibreak! – Quadell (talk) (random)

I missed the new user page; high-five! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Double-whoa! I made the above comment before you blanked your user page! What's up? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just taking a break for a day or so due to accumulated disgust - better now. Thanks for the userpage compliment, actually Phaedriel was the one who redesigned it. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh whew! I saw the above, saw the blanking, and assumed the worst! Continued thanks for all you do! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problems

I thought all users who upload pictures do appear in the file history. Thanks. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 00:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeani Lei

Some Wikimedia Commons users have become concerned with the nature of your uploads of Keeani Lei and are considering deletion. Please see the discussion at commons:Commons:Village pump#Explicit image uploads by User:Taric25‎. Taric25 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm not too worried about. I'm actually kind of regretting uploading that pic anyway, I had to have it added to the naughty image list because it was being used for vandalism. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unspecified sources

Hi Videmus Omnia. It would be really nice if you could leave a single note instead of multiple template messages on my talk page for unsourced images. I've been around for quite a while and a brief notification (instead of a multi-paragraph essay) would have been just fine. Perhaps this issue is something to take up with the person who wrote the scripts you are using... ~MDD4696 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and apologize...I've been trying to clean up images using the deprecated license template {{Military-Insignia}} and have been working through that category with a script. I've asked Howcheng, whose script I use, to modify it...but unfortunately he hasn't responded and I can't find a better or similar script. Sorry again for all the messages. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair Witch external link

Afte4r looking at this diff, I was wondering why you deleted it, as it seemed to be a fairly good interview regarding the subject of the article. Let me know soon, if you would; without a solid reasoning, i will likely revert it back. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with an uninvolved editor adding it back - that particular website was being added to multiple articles by what appeared to be a COI spammer (74.246.123.58 (talk · contribs)) and I was cleaning up after him/her. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To prevent the bot from tagging it

The bot tagged the image twice. Give me the tag, and I'll add it for you. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's either that, or block the bot that is malfunctioning. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. what were you thinking of replacing it with? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to replace it, but someone can replace it with a non-copyrighted diagram. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no such diagram. Under fair use though we are in the clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Then you should investigate a little further. Someone converted it to an SVG, then uploaded the SVG to commons as a GFDL image. On commons they linked to it and explained what it was based on. I've reverted their changes in the Btrieve article, and have now unprotected the image. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FranklinMountains6k

FranklinMountains6k.jpg I took this picture at Kilbourne Hole --Ancheta Wis 10:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the source. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more careful when making links (e.g. on Template:Information)

10 days ago, you updated Template:Information to match the Commons version; however, you neglected to check that the link you made to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia actually pointed anywhere. It didn't. The correct link is Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, with the first "Commons:" being an interwiki link, and the second being the Project namespace on Commons. I've fixed it now, but it would be better if we didn't leave broken links in such a major template for more than a week. Please be more careful. Thanks. 75.214.198.26 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favour

Hey Videmus,

I'm writing regarding the fact that I have acquired two websites, who have accepted my request to supply Wikipedia with images. I'm not sure how to carry on, so as per Blofeld's recommendation I have approached you to assist me. I would like a license such as this one, with Kollywoodtoday.com and Behindwoods.com [6]. If you want photograpjhic/written evidence of their acceptance please ask!

Thank You, RSAP

Universal Hero 19:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They're back

But where are they from this time? -- But|seriously|folks  21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea Images

I wish you had come to me first and asked about this before mass marking images I fixed for deletion. Every single one of those images is from CNFK, the other website you found does not own copyright on Korean military insignia images. In addition, in response to your cocnerns, I got a hold of a staff aide on CTF 76 who said the same images are publically available from the 7th Fleet. I protested all of your SD notices, I know you meant well, but we might want to pull the notices back. Thanks for your understanding. -OberRanks 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get new versions of the images from the DoD? The problem is that these particular versions are copyrighted (or at least are under a claim of copyright). It should be easy to obtain equivalent images under free license. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
We could, but they would look exactly the same. In addition, I would dispute the owner of that website holds copyright on these images. I spoke with (about 15 minutes ago) a contact within the ROK Navy who says the owner of that website cannot copyright their images and it looks like he might have just taken them from ROK sources. The plot thickens it seems. -OberRanks 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide an online link to the DoD or RoK sources? It's pretty obvious that these versions were downloaded straight off uniforminsignia.net's site because the images are in the same format, and the images are exactly the same size (in file size and dimension) as the ones they have. I don't know whether they can legally claim copyright on the versions they made, but the point is that they claim copyright, so it's best to avoid any possible legal hassles by simply getting or making new images that are free of any copyright claim. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
CNFK is of the opinion that this website took the images from them. They don't have them on a webpage but do have them in electronic instructions. I've now talked to several US and ROK officers about this since I have many contacts in that part of the world. I'll be rewriting the article in the end and plan to reupload these images so they wioll appear different. The problem with saying that they appear exactly the same and therefore they must be copyright violations is that there are only so many ways to draw three yellow lines on top of eachother. -OberRanks 05:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sergeant, all of these images you are mass tagging as copyright violations are from CNFK with full authority of the ROK military, If you don't believe me, I will happy to e-mail you on a navy.mil account so that you will be aware that what I am saying is true. Thank you (CNFK N1 Staff) -59.19.47.188 12:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the CNFK's version of the image so that can be verified? Videmus Omnia Talk 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

After making long distance phone calls and talking to many Navy and Army officers about this, I do not like your suggestion that "The South Korean rank insignia are apparently stolen from the commercial website as well." You are supposed to be a senior Air Force NCO yet you are now saying that the CNFK and USFK officers are lieing, or that I am lieing, or both. I answered this on the main page. The insignia chart isn't on the internet, it is an old powerpoint presentation that I have asked CNFK to e-mail to me. And, as stated above, I'm sure if you posted an e-mail and asked CNFK to respond to you from the navy.mil account they probably would. The O-5 I talked to on the phone was willing to clarify this with anyone and actually found it quite silly that such a fuss was being made over free and public pictures. With that said, I apologize if my last statements have seemed harsh. You just dont seem to be listening to what I am saying here and are now suggesting that people have been untruthful. -OberRanks 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I told you before; the previous user who uploaded the images have lied about the sources. You insist they are government sources, but you have not provided us proof that they are. I am going to delete the images now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I insisted because thats EXACTLY what the Navy and the Army told me over the phone when they talked to me and they are willing to verify this on a military e-mail if you provide your e-mail address. Will you do that and give them a chance to answer before deleting everything? -OberRanks 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting any military personnel are lying. I have no doubt that they created some version of these rank insignia. However, I don't believe that they created these particular versions and that their statement comes from an honest misunderstanding. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that answer. You must understanding how frustrating this is for me since I really did call Korea on several occassions and it seems like now what they told me is being dismissed. I am supposed to be sent this famous insignia chart that they have told me about and I guess I will reupload images from there. Will that satisfy everyone? -OberRanks 00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexz Johnson Picture

I've contacted the person who uploaded the picture, but am not getting replies. Anything you could do to light a fire under them (e.g., note on their talk page) would be much appreciated! I'd like to get this straightened out.

If all else fails, and if they don't reply, then let's go ahead with the deletion process. I will be obtaining properly licenced photos from the production company, Epitome Pictures, in due course.

Here's where I left the note.

JD Fan 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PUI cases tend to take a while to process - I would just proceed with getting a freely-licensed image and replace the questionable image if/when you can. Thanks for working this! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been in touch with Epitome Pictures, who have confirmed that they will be providing high-quality images with all the necessary licencing. I suggested that the best way to proceed would be to place the images in the Wikimedia Commons under an Attribution ShareAlike licence. Thumbnails of the pictures would then be used in the article, and rotated over time to refresh the article. They asked what specs to use for the pictures, and I said, the highest quality, given that they would be going into the Wikimedia Commons.

JD Fan 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We now have a set of 8 high-quality pictures for the Alexz Johnson and Instant Star articles, with all the necessary permissions from the rights-holder (Epitome Pictures).

JD Fan 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Drop me a line when you upload them, I'd like to see them. Nice work! Videmus Omnia Talk 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I now have to figure out how to do the actual upload - but it probably won't be too difficult. I checked the properties for the pictures, and I now see what you meant by metadata - lots of that here!

JD Fan 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really ...

I really do not need all those notices on my talkpage. I added those images quite a while ago, with a full licence as provided at the time. I can't help it when they want to change it, or suddenly claim the license was insufficient. So delete or list them or whatever but I don't need a notice every single time. Thanks.Rex 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Howz it going then?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Going good, thanks - just been busy with real-life work stuff, that's why I've been so slow at answering here. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it you who removed the Clint Eastwood image from the westerns? It is unfortunate we can't find a free classic image like that of him in his heyday. I cropped that image of him from the 1980s which I managed to find its just a shame we can't obtain an image of him as he is most famous for. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have removed some Eastwood images from articles that didn't have rationales written for them (I happened to have the computer in front of me while watching Pale Rider), but I don't remember which articles they were. I imagine there could be be a rationale for including at least one in his bio, it just needs to be written. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Tim

Dear Tim, Thank you for notifying me about the Yojimbo poster without rationale. I've just added it. Thanks again and best wishes, --Cyril Thomas 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I would, however, add the article name to the rationale per WP:NFCC#10c so the poster doesn't get flagged by BCBot. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting for Speedy Delete

Hi, I'm requesting for a speedy delete for both of my images, Rbocking.jpg and Rcbocking.jpg. I deleted the information on purpose in order for it to be deleted automatically after a while. If possible, if you could put a speedy delete tag I would appreciate it! Thanks. IamMcLovin 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The tags I placed on the images are speedy delete tags, the images should be deleted in a week or so barring any source/licensing info being placed on the image pages. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, alright, thanks anyway. Kevin 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock's uploads

I am noticing a pattern with your speedy notices; a lot of the images tagged for deletion were uploaded by him. That was one of the main reasons why he left; we had to keep hounding him because he lied about his sources for images. I expect this is not the only time we had to deal with this. The problem also exists on a sister project called Wikimedia Commons, so the battle has just begun. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military insignia images

Yeah, this is quite a problem. It would help me to see images of the actual insignias, as created by the governments in question. If uniforminsignia.net is creating its own images, then we can't use them, whether the originals are PD or copyright. I think. Perhaps we should list this at WP:FUR or WP:MCQ to get the opinion of more policy wonks? -- But|seriously|folks  02:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42 15 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history 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 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not start making attacks and blanking my statements

I am trying to reconcile the situation with Durin and you blanking my comments does not help matters. Please stop and let Durin and me work it out. Thank you. -OberRanks 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but your behavior in this situation seems silly to me. If you don't want people to know you're Husnock, then stay away from Husnock's articles and don't repeat or defend Husnock's policy violations. Otherwise you make the situation blatantly obvious. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Durin

Knock it off. Durin posted a very long message to Husnock/OberRanks, who is not a banned user, and he is entitled to respond. If Durin wants to remove it, he can do so himself. Neil ☎ 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It seems to me that Husnock is attempting to follow his typical pattern of denying the obvious and attempting to argue his opponent into exhaustion, but I suppose Durin can handle it. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've dealt with Husnock more than most - there's good intentions somewhere in there, but he is a problem, and I'l going to try and deal with it. However, removing the comments will do nothing other than make things worse, and given Ryan has closed the AN/I discussion and told him to take it up with Durin on his talk page, it's pretty unfair to remove OberRanks' edit. Neil ☎ 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:06, 16 October 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
Adriana Sage
Dyanna Lauren
Lucy Lee (Korean)
Mini-jazz
Asian American jazz
Ashlyn Gere
Gypsy jazz
List of action stars
Bridgette Kerkove
Jessica Dee
Nikky Blond
Last Son of Krypton
Vanessa Angel
Trad jazz
Judy Star
Susan Hart
Digital Playground
High Society (magazine)
Wicked Pictures
Cleanup
Human skin color
Sumptuary law
Mike Horner
Merge
Gonzo
Najara
Coast City
Add Sources
Jazz blues
Adam Hart (porn star)
Julia Ann
Wikify
Blue Harvest
Dean Motter
Robert Wuhl
Expand
Pandora Peaks
Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Enlisted
Maggie Grace

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 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been given a suggestion to expand Pandora Peaks?... Good God! Dekkappai 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Dekkappai, that's the funniest thing I've seen on Wikipedia in months! :) Videmus Omnia Talk 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine images

Hi Videmus Omnia! You mistagged all those images, I'm afraid. See, some countries put their work in the PD (ex. anything made by a us gvt employee is in the pd), and Ukraine is part of them. Please read up the copyright law in question more carefully, and look carefully at the tag. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, these are the images that were discussed here. I think the issue was that the website claimed copyright, and it was not clear whether or not they had added some creativity to their version of what was originally PD. Zscout370 redrew some (all?) of them from scratch so that they could be freely used without any doubt as to whether or not they really were free images. ElinorD (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll drop Maxim a note on his talk page and send the images to IfD, since there seems to be contention about whether they are speediable. In addition to the WP:ANI report that Elinor linked, there was another discussion regarding this site at WP:AN here (permalink as discussion will probably be archived soon). Videmus Omnia Talk 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] back?

No, I'm just temporarily in port. I'll be gone again in just a few days :( -Nard 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That sucks...looking forward to having you back - have missed you around here, and the ranks of people who work images seem to thinning out. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks VO! Two barnstars from the same editor... Is that legal? I'm always a little apprehensive about joking around here, what with "incivility" claims always near at hand, so I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. Cheers! Dekkappai 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PNG crusade bot

Dot, would you mind unleasing the bot? The conversion categories are getting a little backlogged...also, had a quick question - are black & white photos usually better off in PNG than JPG format? Thanks... Videmus Omnia Talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. But unfortunately, the bot is encountering errors trying to convert specific images, and I don't know why. As far as black & white photos, JPEG is probably best, but as always, use a high quality setting. I typically set the GIMP to the 95% quality setting. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Word of Friendly Advice"

Hi there. Word of advice from a fellow NCO. Don’t advertise too heavily on this site that you’re in the military and watch who you talk to. Some people on here are not American citizens and have their own ideas about things. Believe it or not, what you do on Wikipedia can turn up in a background check and affect a security clearance. We just had two guys get denied a Secret clearance because they associated with people on this site from Cuba and China. You’re probably about ready to get out, I bet, so it might not apply to you. By the way, awesome user page! T. Hodge, E9, RA -143.138.26.138 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents' worth...I hope that this never happens, because it would be a gross violation of your freedom if you were judged not by who you are but by who you collaborated with on Wikipedia. It it not a crime to listen to others' ideas, especially ideas so trivial as how to improve an online encyclopedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
And, to make it an even four-cents, I'd like to put in that a few of us American citizens also have our own ideas about things... That is, as long as our non-citizen wives allow us to... Dekkappai 19:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] use of kargil war image

Hello, the Image:Pakistan army kargil.jpg has a source provided, and a detailed rationale for why the image should be used in Kargil War article and I believe it is satisfactory given that it addesses Pakistani authors demands for a long time (as talk page will reveal) for a Pakistani image on the war. However, some have added this image to other articles which may not be fair use as per Wikipedia policy. If you desire you can remove them from the other articles, since the image was uploaded solely for Kargil War article. --Idleguy 02:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no indication from the given source who the copyright holder is. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tupto

Blocked. Are all his uploads bad? ~ Riana ⁂ 11:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Long story short, take a look at this page and do something similar for the ROITR sock images at Commons. White Cat is an Commons admin and while he doesn't leave helpful edit summaries, his reversions mean that he has administratively declined your speedies. I am just learning about this myself. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter for WikiProject Biography

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
no. 6 - October 2007
Project News
  • Just a reminder, there is a new irc channel for WikiProject Biography, #wikipedia-en-bio.
  • The Collaboration department has been restarted. The department will provide help in improving biographicle articles. New Collaborations and requests will be publiished here in the future
Article News

Newest featured biographies:

Collaboration:
This months collaboration is Woody Allen. Current requests are:

Member announcements

From now on members of this project make announcements or voice their opinions on anything
Members news

Our new members:

From the Editors

As said before, the newsletter will publish new collaboration requests every month. If there are a large number of requests, only the most recent requests will be published.

This newsletter will now be delivered on the 20th day of every month

We're looking for new writers to help write this newsletter. All those who wish to help must do is add news to next months newsletter before release

Contributors to this Issue
Complete To Do List

Assessment Progress

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: You have been delivered this newsletter because you are listed on the WikiProject Biography Spamlist. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, remove your name. From the automated, Anibot 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire Games Flag

Hi,

I created the graphic (based on photos) from my own site of the flags and emblems of the Commonwealth Games. The GCF knows about it, and has actively encouraged me to continue the page, providing that none of the images be used for profit. As someone (I do not know who) copied it and put it on Wikipedia, it does not violate the non-profit clause.

Expatkiwi —Preceding comment was added at 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)