User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Sep 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Transformers Season's 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 jpg

You made a mistake about the fair use rational. The fair use rational only applies to photos that were uploaded after May 4, 2006. These photos were uploaded before May 4. I am going to take the no rationals off my photos. Next time look at the upload date so next time you won't make that same mistake again. Thank You.--Stco23 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry - it applies to all non-free content. See WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry about my other messages and I know that you have been a wikipedian for 3 months. I took off my old messages, but do not put back those fair use rational messages on my photos. I promise that I will have those photos with fair use rationals sometime within the next two days. I am very upset with this rule that you have to put fair use rational on every single photo that is Non-Free no matter what date you upload it. One editor told me that only photos that were uploaded after May 4, 2006 needed the Fair Use Rational. I hope I do not have to put fair use rational on every single photo that I have uploaded so far. I will be so angry. I am so angry about this and I hope you understand this. Thank You.--Stco23 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand, a lot of people were unhappy about the Foundation's change in policy regarding non-free media. Indeed, I believe your statement about media uploaded prior to May 2006 was correct at one time, but it's changed. I'm afraid you will have to put a rationale on all non-free media you've uploaded in the past. I won't go back through your upload log, but I recommend that you do so. There are currently bots running (and others being coded) to examine all non-free images for valid rationales, so it's only a matter of time before you get notified about them. You do not need rationales for any free images (GFDL or PD) that you have uploaded. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with my Fair Use Rationals. Let me know.--Stco23 15:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Gah! Big error on my part, I've gone back and fixed it. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you and by the way there is not chance that they will be resized because that was the best i could get it. If you wanted me to split them, then that would be a problem. Thank You.--Stco23 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally the resizing is done by a handful of volunteers who work those requests - if you'd like to split them, that's up to you. Non free pictures should be limited to .1 megapixel or less (about 315x315 or so) per WP:NFCC#3. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I put them together is to save space and not to have many photos on one article. Do you think that these photos needs a resize because of them being too big. Let me know.--Stco23 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please - see my message above for the recommended size. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's stupid because my camera is a high res camera that puts photos on the computer. It's a stupid rule because I try on myspace to resize my photo and I get crap from myspace saying that I need to resize my photos again and I hate it. I hope you know how I feel about that.--Stco23 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand - you don't need to be the one to resize the image, someone else will do it. Don't worry, the resize request does not mean the images will be deleted, it's just housekeeping. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Will the resizing ruin the quality of my photos, because if it does I will be very upset.--Stco23 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It will just make them smaller. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I did my own resizing of my uploads of those DVD covers they are not as small, but they are not as big as they once were. DVD covers have to show detail, but Fuzzy510 made my uploads very small that they showed no detail and looked like crap, so I did my own resizing of my uploads so that these DVD covers do show detail and not look like crap. I hope this resizing change that I made makes you happy. Thank You.--Stco23 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive users and TFA archives

Hi there. I have the talk page of several inactive users on my watchlist, so I saw the tags that you put at User talk:Mirlen. Is there a way for you (and others) to check whether a user is inactive or not? It wouldn't take long, and you could then try and find somewhere else to notify as well. It seems a bit of a waste of your time leaving notifications that probably won't be seen. I would suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars in this case. PS. Did you see the reply I wrote to your post at WP:AN about the pictures in the TFA archives? Have a look at what I did at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). I haven't got round to listing the non-free ones, but I did see a few. I estimate of the 1277 blurbs, about one or two a month might need checking - so about 50 or so cases where the images should be removed or a free alternative used. I still think blurbs for article about images (eg. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2007), should be a WP:NFCC exception. :-) Carcharoth 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching your post at TFA - wow, that's a lot of work, thanks for taking it on! On the notifications, those are done by script, so I don't see that the user is inactive until after the message is posted. I recommend that folks at the WikiProject watchlist the images they are interested in. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Or better yet, go through and fix the rationales. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have no interest in Star Wars pics. When you get to the Middle-earth pics, I might take more interest... I have been mulling over the possibility of sensible non-free use strategies to limit excessive non-free use. Something like, for a music performer, the minimum number of photos would be a current picture (if available), and one of them in performance (if retired). The former would be left for someone to eventually snap a free pic. But the latter would usually have to be fair use if they are no longer performing. For things like the fictional projects (Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc), it could be something like a maximum of 2 fair-use images from a particular movie, and no more. And a maximum of 1 non-free image per 5 articles, up to a maximum of (say) 20 (depending on the size of the project). That way, it would still be possible to purge Wikipedia of excessive non free use, while still allowing some and forcing people to carefully pick what is really needed. Kind of like a non free use rationale for a set of images for a topic area. Does that sound reasonable? I can just see the license now: "The use of these 20 images, and only these 20 images, to illustrate the XYZ topic area, and used in these articles, is considered fair use..." The reason I'm noting this here? I only just thought of it! Carcharoth 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean - it's really subjective. I designed the template {{non-free}} to use in cases like this, it really takes human judgement by someone who is familiar with non-free content policy, which not a lot of Wikipedians take interest in. Betacommand said he would think about a bot to count the number of non-free images in articles, but it may be a while. Any sort of policy change would be contentious, there are already a lot of old heads freaking out about non-free content enforcement. Oh, and above, I didn't mean that you should fix the rationales, I meant the WikiProject people should. But nobody does anything until the images are up for deletion, then they usually scream at the person who tagged the noncompliant images. <sigh> Oh, well - cheers, and thanks for your rational inputs on this issue! Videmus Omnia Talk 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential use of a bot

I do not know if you are using an unauthorized bot to make the fair use tagging but I'd recommend the use of an authorized bot. It would be easier for you. :) -- Cat chi? 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not using a bot, just a monobook script. Videmus Omnia Talk 11:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Enterprise XCV 330

I noticed you tagged Image:USS Enterprise (XCV 330).jpg with "should be replaced with a smaller version". The image already is a low resolution copy of the original art, and any lower resolution would make it impossible to read the ships full name and registry, which is the reason the image was added to the article. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard for non-free images seems to be 0.1 megapixel or less, which is about 315x315 (or so the experts who do the rescaling tell me. I think it would still be readable at that resolution - if not, would it be possible to crop the image to ensure it only includes the required portion? Videmus Omnia Talk 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no standard at all. That's simply bull shit. Matthew 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding source of Image:Ferengis1.jpg

I saw that you tagged this as missing a source. I'm just wondering how detailed a source specification is needed. Based on the background scenery, I'm sure it's from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm also pretty sure that it's from the episode Rascals, though I can't currently verify this, as I'm not close to my box-set for at least a couple of days. Would it be sufficient to state that it's a screenshot from the Star Trek: The Next Generation series? --Pekaje 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It has to be verifiable - I think that might be too vague, based on what I've seen in the past. I think I might have that episode around somewhere, I'll try to find something as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can't verify that it is from that episode, I suggest replacing it with this one. It has a verifiable source, and I actually think it's a better image because it shows Ferengi of different ages. --Pekaje 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's perfectly fine to state it's from ST:TNG. Unless soldier boy has something to back himself up that it isn't? Matthew 15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil, thanks. And I'm not a soldier, or a boy. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Image:MusicalTheater3.jpg, Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg, and Image:ChorusLine.jpg all have very detailed rationales for using them under "fair use," and each one is used in two articles about subjects related to them. I noticed you are questioning their validity. Why? ConoscoTutto 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I included the reason in the 'disputed' template', but basically I feel they're not in compliance with WP:NFCC#8 in the Musical theatre article. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
So if others feel these images do comply with WP policies, they are free to revert your removals? Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what's happened. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you be a little more specific. I see nothing in WP:NFCC#8 to suggest these images don't belong in the Musical theatre article. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If the images were removed from the article, would it be significantly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic Musical theatre? I don't believe it would be. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The above seems to me a completely new argument which states that you think the images are superfluous, in other words, your changes are editorial changes. Isn't the correct way before making wholesale editorial changes to discuss it on the Talk pages first and reach consensus? Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If the images were allowed to remain, would they be significantly detrimental to Wikipedia? No. They are iconic images of classic musical productions and definitely belong in an article about musical theatre. I'm concerned that you're being overly diligent in your pursuit of invalid images and ultimately will damage good articles by removing them. These are images that have been in place a long time, so I don't understand why you're questioning them now. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If they remain, they're detrimental to the objective of keeping the encyclopedia free - see the Foundation's licensing resolution. I know that you're passionate about having a quality article, I respect that. But using free images instead of copyrighted ones will benefit everyone. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with using images of album covers and publicity posters to illustrate an article about musical theatre? The producers of these shows/albums are more than happy for these images to be distributed on the internet, as it can only increase the interest of the public in seeing and hearing these shows. In addition, most of these images are already widely distributed on the internet. It is amazing to me that Wikipedia editors should try to remove obviously qualified fair use images from articles created in good faith by other editors. If you have any free images that would illustrate this article, by all means add them. Otherwise, I am certain that you have better ways to improve Wikipedia than to remove images that pose no danger whatever to the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment immediately above yours. The Foundation has directed that copyrighted content will be kept to an absolute minimum in order to keep the encyclopedia free - I didn't make the policy, I'm sorry. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IGNORE. There are no free images available, or we would be happy to use them. Why would you spend so much energy to destroy something that will delight our readers? -- Ssilvers 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIARM - "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.". And there are free images available - Musical theatre already has public domain images for illustrations. I'm not attempting to destroy anything - just trying to keep our encyclopedia free. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have free images, please tell us where they are. Otherwise, I think that these images do help the reader to better understand musical theatre, and removing them will hurt Wikipedia and deprive its readers of useful information that cannot adequately be explained in text. Thanks --Broadwaygal 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but arguing with me isn't going to change the policy. Once again, please see the non-free content criteria and the Foundation's resolution, linked above. It's not enough that the images are useful or helpful, they have to be necessary. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Videmus: I don't think you understand the policy. The policy is not to delete all non-free images, it is to encourage the addition of free images where available. I do not believe that you are correct that there are free images for Wicked, Hair, etc., and you have not pointed us to any of them. Images of these copyrighted properties are only available under the doctrine of fair use (an exception to Section 107 of the U.S. copyright law), and Wikipedia policy DOES allow fair use images where there are no alternates. If you can point us to some free images then, by all means, please do so and we will happily exchange them. But I do not know of any that exist for the modern musicals. Please remove the dispute tags until you have identified free images. -- Ssilvers 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the policy, as most of the work I do is with images - not just removing non-compliant ones, but obtaining free images as well. See my user page. Why do you need to decorate the article with those particular copyrighted images? Why can't you use more public-domain images, or maybe obtain free images from lesser-known musical productions? Those are just suggestions. We can back and forth on this for days (I'm already tired of repeating myself in this conversation), but it won't change the policy that non-free content must be kept to an absolute minimum. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Using images from some non-notable private theatricals wouldn't be much encyclopedic, don't you think?SuperElephant 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the history of musical theatre and describes some of the most important musicals. After 1923, the publicity posters and album covers of these musicals are under copyright, so there are no such free images. The article is not supposed to describe "lesser-known musical productions", it is supposed to describe the most historically significant ones. These images are the best way to illustrate those productions. The images being used are all comfortably within the "fair use" doctrine, AND they are not readily replaceable, as you must know by now, since, after all this, you have not been able to point us to even one free image. I know you must be trying to act in good faith here, but you are only creating an issue where none exists. These images (or similar fair use images) are the best ones to illustrate this article. It would not even be permissable for a person to go to a Broadway show and take photographs of the productions. In addition, most of these productons are closed now, and no free images are being contributed to the public domain until the copyright expires. Would you kindly withdraw the dispute tags? -- Ssilvers 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree on this. I think it's best to wait; an uninvolved administrator will eventually make the determination on whether or not the rationales are valid for the usage you would like to make. Videmus Omnia Talk
Indeed, it would have been better to seek authoritative input and community discussion before you embarked on this crusade. Michael Bednarek 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a crusade, just trying to help keep the encyclopedia free. If the removals are uncontested, then there's no point in seeking outside opinions. There are so many noncompliant non-free images that WP:BRD seems to be the best way forward in cases like this. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The BRD procedure is inappropriate in a case where other editors are interested in the issue and communicating with you. At this point, the consensus is clear for you to stop deleting images from musical theatre-related articles. If you point out to me that an image is missing a needed fair use rationale, I will gladly add it, OK? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's nothing personal. If a non-free image doesn't have a rationale for use in a certain article, it has to be removed from that article. I presume the article is being closely watched by several editors, and I'm stating what I'm doing in the edit summaries, and why. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is disagreeing with you about this. These images HAVE RATIONALES and are legitimately useful in these articles. If someone has forgotten to add a needed fair use rationale to an image, we can easily add it. Please reconsider your position, which seems to all of these editors writing here to be a distortion of the intent of the rules. We all want to make Wikipedia better, and the consensus is that it is better to include these images in the articles discussing the history of musicals; not to tag them for deletion. We all agree that if there WERE any free images that illustrated the historical place of these musicals, we would happily use them intstead. Think about the purpose of this online encyclopedia: People can read about this subject online and see images that graphically illustrate the subject much better than, e.g., Brittanica can do. These images qualify under the fair use doctrine (an exception to the copyright law), and it is proper and useful that we supply these images to our readers. -- Ssilvers 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have not deleted any non-free images from Musical theatre that had a fair use rationale written for Musical theatre. When I disagreed with the rationale, I disputed it on the talk page, which is the correct process. This was met by other editors (I won't name names) simply deleting the 'disputed' tags from image pages, which can be considered vandalism. Can you please follow process instead of constantly arguing on my talk page? I promise I am not going to change my mind on this interpretation of the non-free content policy. Not everyone disagrees with me about this interpretation, only the !owners of the Musical theatre article. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No one owns articles in Wikipedia. There are only editors who are trying to create useful content and editors who are trying to delete useful content. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have been putting your notices on the talk page of a blocked editor. If you must tag images, please put the notice on the talk page of the article from which you wish to remove the image. Then, people watching the article can respond instead of having to pick it up from the page of the blocked uploader. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but under what authority does your tag make this statement: "Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, the image will be deleted or removed from some uses after Monday, 27 August 2007"? I think that a fair-use rationale HAS been supplied. You disagree. Will you kindly take this text out of your template? -- Ssilvers 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my tag, it's a standard template that everyone uses, I don't know who wrote it. My sentence in tag clearly states that I'm disputing the rationale that's in place. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you opened a case at [[1]]. I guess interested editors should post further comments there. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not an army!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an army!SuperElephant 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - good thing I'm not in the Army! Videmus Omnia Talk 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Army would have to be the least intimidating military force ever. "Company. . . Revert!" – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Uh...notice board?--Angel David 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI might be a good place. Or perhaps a request for comment. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drakkhen non-free images

Just wondering on how you arrived at the two or three figure as being appropriate for the Drakkhen article. Cheers Vranak 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think even that would be too many. One is probably enough to show the style of the game, as non-free media needs to be kept to an absolute minimum per WP:NFCC#3a. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
However, this is contradicted somewhat by the article gudelines at WikiProject Video Games:
"Screenshots are great for enhancing the comprehensiveness of articles, and all computer and video game articles should have at least a couple."
I think three is a reasonable number, especially considering that one of them is from a different system and company (Amiga). Goldenband 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I could maybe go for that - say, a title screen in an infobox (which needs to be added), and one image showing the game appearance in each incarnation, provided there is some non-OR commentary on the appearance of the games. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I give up. I was the steward of the Drakkhen page for a while, but you've pushed me off my perch. Do what you will with it. Vranak 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Vranak - I hope that all this hasn't taken the wind out of your sails too much. I think we've come to a reasonable compromise -- title screen, French version, and two different gameplay screens (outdoor and indoor) from the SNES version. Videmus Omnia, will this work for you? (RIP canine head, but so it goes.) Meanwhile, I've made some copy edits to the article that I think tighten things up a bit. Goldenband 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Much better - thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah we're cool. Vranak 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Although, on second thought -- I don't honestly see what all the fuss is about. The move to take down pictures is in my mind driven by ideology rather than the reality of the situation: i.e. who would really care that the video game they worked on 15-20 years ago is well-covered by illustrations on Wikipedia? Vranak 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your concern is a common one. Basically what happened is that the Foundation came out with a new resolution a few months ago that non-free content has to kept to an absolute minimum. It's not about legal exposure, it's about creating an encyclopedia that's free for anyone to use, re-use, or distribute. I understand this policy is frustrating to editors who care deeply about the quality of illustrations on particular articles - hopefully we've found a good compromise. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok I understand. Vranak 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your tagging of Image:James Doohan 1980s.jpg

Please try at a minimum to give notice on the articles where the images you tag are being used, either by using Template:Deletable image-caption or through an article talk page notice, or both. Notifying the uploader alone is not an effective means of ensuring that the problem gets corrected, particularly when the image was uploaded years ago, because there is no guarantee that an uploader will remain interested in the image or involved in Wikipedia at all. I've already taken care of it for this image. Postdlf 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

That's just plain ornery and wrong. First you call for everyone to "let an uninvolved admin decide" whether to keep the images. Then when one does show up and decide to keep them, you rush off and WP:IFD it. And you wonder why people are opposing you in the discussions? Your stock has gone way down in my eyes. FeloniousMonk 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how listing this image for wider consensus is disruptive. To what forum should I have taken my concern? Videmus Omnia Talk 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please. You and I both know that there's broad consensus already expressed on the talk pages and elsewhere to keep these images, and your zealousness [2] on this image belies your claim of simply seeking broader community input. Looks to me you don't like being challenged on these matters and aren't willing to accept outcomes that you disagree with; neither are useful attributes on the project. FeloniousMonk 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make assumptions about my personality or motivations, this is nothing personal. I have no problem with non-free content that meets the criteria. There is no such consensus as you refer to above, see the discussion at WP:FUR. Could you please answer my question above, or is it that you don't like being challenged on your decisions? Videmus Omnia Talk 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Image:Star Trek Human Montage.JPG

"Star Trek women have a significantly larger average bust size." - Quadell (talk)
"Star Trek women have a significantly larger average bust size."
- Quadell (talk)

Ok I got you're message, but I can't say I understand all the legal Mumbo Jumbo. As I stated here Talk:Human (Star Trek) over a year ago, I created the image by simply combining several pictures which were already on Wikipedia. I assumed that, seeing as those pics were ok, putting them together wouldn't be a problem. So are you saying that it's not ok? Anyway, you seemed to be saying in your message that it might be ok, if it is irreplaceable. Well I don't know if it's irreplaceable, I mean I guess someone could make a similar montage, but I have no idea what the legalities of that will be either. Are you saying that to be used, all the pictures used must be totally free? I somewhat doubt that we'll just find a suitable image out there, remember the criteria I was going from, the pictures has to represent a significant amount of the racial and gender diversity of humans on Star Trek as well as show humans from different periods of history, to get a complete idea of the species. I mean, I doubt we're just going to find such a thing laying around, someone's going to have to make it, this was my attempt. As I say, I don't know the legalities, so can you tell me if either: it is possible not to delete this image?, or if not possible, then how can I make an acceptable one? --Hibernian 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, how do Star Trek humans differ from "real world" humans, in regards to appearance? Videmus Omnia Talk 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Star Trek women have a significantly larger average bust size. This fact cannot be adequately portrayed by text. (Okay, I'm joking.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, so I included an appropriate free image to convey this. Omission of this image would cause significant detriment to the readers' understanding of the topic. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... Well to answer your question, they don't differ as far as I know. But I don't quite see what that has to do with anything. Anyway you haven't answered any of my questions, can you please do so? --Hibernian 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the digression...anyway, what I meant is that, unless there's a reason we need to have a copyrighted image of a Star Trek human because it's impossible to have an free image that gets across the same idea to the reader, it's considered replaceable per WP:NFCC#1. I understand the Star Trek costumes are a concern - would it be possible to have a free image of a cosplayer like the female Andorian? Or maybe the free image on Uhura?
Also I think the publicity photos that this image was derived from were deleted as having no good source, which is a problem as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT again

Now you have attempted to have the fair use images deleted; failing that, you have placed dispute tags on them that say to remove the tag when a fair use rationale is given; after the fair use rationale was given, you have continued to refuse to remove the tag and suggested that other editors who were following the instructions on the tag were committing vandalism; faced with a consensus against what you are doing you have opened an FUR in an attempt to get editors who don't care about this area of Wikipedia involved; and now you have placed an ugly copyright tag on our flagship article. Why are you doing all this? This is so wrong. We understand that free images are better than fair use images, but there aren't any available to illustrate this article (or the parts of it that pertain to musicals after 1923). This is very sad and hurts the readers of Wikipedia. Shame on you. -- Ssilvers 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel very bad, but I'm only trying to ensure the article complies with policy. How is it disruptive to add an applicable tag or to request input at an appropriate forum? Have you read the comments at WP:FUR? Videmus Omnia Talk 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have 20,000 edits on Wikipedia in a variety of areas. My own policy is that if an edit would make me feel bad, I don't make it. Listen to your conscience. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not tear it down. These images are legal, and the policy reason to exclude them (assuming that you are right and I am wrong) is foolish. The owners of the copyrights would never release them to the public domain, but at the same time, they would be very happy that their promotional materials are featured in this article. This article educates people about an interesting part of our culture - musical theatre - that involves a synthesis of literature, music, dance and visual arts. What possible harm can there be in letting people see how these musicals are marketed and (often) contain iconinc photos of performers in them or graphics that are famously connected with the genre musical theatre. I do not think you are helping the encyclopedia in this instance. OK, I'm an inclusionist. I think that if we add stuff to Wikipedia (as long as it's legal), then we can refine and improve it over time. If we just delete stuff, then there is a gaping hole that could have informed readers and encouraged them to join the project. Sorry that we disagree here, but I think this is very wrong. -- Ssilvers 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (Butting in. . .) We have to follow policy, even when we don't agree with that policy. I personally think that our non-free content policy is very wise, even if it does make things more difficult in some cases. But the "gaping hole" that is left by a deleted image encourages the creation of free content. We're not just the greatest encyclopedia -- we're also a "free content" encyclopedia. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think the goal of being "free content" is better/more important than the goal of excelling? What is wrong with fair use content? -- Ssilvers 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Foundation has told us (I linked the resolution in the 'Images' thread above). Videmus Omnia Talk 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the resolution recognized what we are doing here. The resolution says: "3... EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." This is exactly the case here. We are illustrating historically significant events in the development of musical theatre with "identifying copyrighted contemporary works". -- Ssilvers 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical theatre is not a copyrighted work, it's a genre. That's why, for example, a poster is OK in the article about Moulin Rouge!, which is copyrighted, but not in Musical theatre, which is not copyrighted. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an article "about copyrighted contemporary works" (at least with respect to the post-1923 works, which is the most important era in the history of musical theatre). You are bending over backwards to interpret the resolution as excluding these images for this article. Your interpretation of the resolution is a deletionist interpretation and, as I have said (so I'll try to shut up now), it is not helping Wikipedia, it is hurting it. -- Ssilvers 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> We're not going to convince each other. Let's stop wasting time and bytes and leave the decision to others. With respect - Videmus Omnia Talk 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the issue of image copyrights...

...Image:Videmus Omnia.jpg and Image:Videmus Omnia 3.JPG are tagged as "self made". While I am willing to take your word for it, it really isn't obvious how you, the subject of the images, made them (especially the first one). It would definitely be helpful if you added a couple words explaining ("made with automatic camera and tripod" or whatever). Just a word to the wise - you know how people are about copyrights...someone, at some point in time will question them. Guettarda 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, if I may generalize a little on the above: At least with fair use images, you know that what you are getting is legal for the encyclopedia to use. With supposedly "free" images, often you only have someone's word for it that they are free. -- Ssilvers 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
True dat. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you do me a favor?

Fire, fire everywhere
Fire, fire everywhere

I tagged Image:Etam-youth-thong.jpg as replaceable, and the uploader, User:VigilancePrime seems to vociferously disagree. We've had some back-and-forth on our talk pages. When I tagged as replaceable several other underwear images that he uploaded, he seems to have taken it personally. Could you give your opinion on the issue? (If you think I'm in the wrong, by all means, say so.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do, if, in return, you could please stop by WP:FUR and offer your generally calm and level-headed input to some very contentious discussions currently going on there. Your inputs are generally so good that my private nickname for you is "The Fire Extinguisher". :) Videmus Omnia Talk 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried, but my fire extinguisher seems to on the fritz. Who would have thought that a straightforward topic like Intelligent Design would have attracted so much controversy? :-) Anyway, it's your turn. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Quadell, I've posted the two controversial images at IfD here. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reduce

What is the maximum number of megapixels that can be used in a non-free image on Wikipedia in accordance with the Non-free_content policy? Image:Cardassian logo plain.png is only about 0.6 megapixels. If I were to print that out at 300dpi (85µm) that'd only be about a 3"x2" (8cm x 5cm) picture. This size does not sound too large. Jecowa 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears fine now - looks like Pekaje reduced it. I'm not sure where the exact guidelines are - the experts who fulfill the resize requests have told me that a rough rule of thumb is about 0.1 megapixels (about 315x315 for a square image). There would be exceptions granted, I believe, if a higher resolution were required for understanding. I think a guideline would be that a non-free image shouldn't be any larger on the image page than it is in the article where it's displayed. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the above only applies to non-free images - free images should be at the highest resolution possible - up to (I believe) 5Mb file size. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had this question posed many times, so I'll answer as well. Generally speaking, the consensus appears to be that non-free content should be limited to approximately 0.1 megapixel and some 300-400 pixels on the longest dimension. One should also consider the context an image is used in, and make sure that it isn't wildly large or too small for the intended use. We generally consider only what is adequate for the web-site, and it is deliberate that printouts should be of inferior quality (so for instance, CD covers downloaded from Wikipedia can't be used for piracy). With regards to the specific image, 200x300 is easily enough for the intended use in the article, so I have rescaled it. Hope this helps. --Pekaje 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the Jedi poster

I understand your concerns. That's actually what I was working on at the time you sent your message. I've replaced the image with a lower resolution version. :) The Filmaker 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is Lucasfilm Ltd. as it was the film's production company and the source of it's marketing. I've added it to the fair-use rationale. The Filmaker 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Aren't these nice? :)
Aren't these nice? :)

Just popping by to say hiya. Noticed you on someone else's talkpage, figured it'd be nice to drop off some flowers. Have a great day! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I really appreciate it, people rarely stop by to say something nice. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for helping out with the Matthew situation. I didn't want to complain about something so idiotic, but it was starting to get under my skin. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Repeatedly incivility is not something to be tolerated. As a community, we're supposed to respect each other.
By the way, congrats for the great work you've been doing in defending the free nature of the project. Your example renews my energies. --Abu badali (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading of photos for the Wichita Massacre page

Hi, you sent me a message stating that I did not provide a rationale for why the images I uploaded are covered under 'fair use'. However, I did already provide those rationales:

Image:Carr_brothers.jpg: "Fair use -- image of convicted persons distributed by law enforcement to news agencies worldwide."

Image:Wichita_massacre_victims.jpg: "Fair useimage of deceased persons distributed by law enforcement to news agencies worldwide."

-- J.R. Hercules 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J.R. - thanks for getting in touch with me. Before I get too in-depth in this, please take a look at WP:FURG, which explains the procedure in-depth for fair-use rationales. But basically non-free image rationales have to satisfy all ten of the criteria in WP:NFCC. A couple of the problems that jump out at me right away is that the copyright holder of the images is not identified (WP:NFCC#10a), the article in which they are to be used isn't specified (WP:NFCC#10c - easy fix), and there's no explanation as to why the non-free images are needed in the article (WP:NFCC#8). Please let me know if you need any help with this. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's all right

I already apologizied. I was wrong and Durin was right!--Angel David 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please just leave the talkpage alone. This will all just fade away. Now go write an encyclopedia! :) Videmus Omnia Talk 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Ducati_mach1_800.jpg

From the [Image:Ducati_mach1_800.jpg]:

800x600 Reduction of 1280x1024 PR photograph from Ducati Motor Holdings Website HERITAGE

izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the URL? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

I have requested a deletion review for Image:MargaretWilson.jpg. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 23 gadfium 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented there, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical question

Sorry to bother you - WP:IUP#Format says that PNG is preferable for screenshots...should existing screenshots in JPG format ever be tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}}, or should the uploader be contacted to request a PNG version be uploaded, and the JPG left alone if they won't do so or are absent? Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer this question. JPEG screenshots should almost always be tagged with {{BadJPEG}} or {{ShouldBePNG}}. Contacting the uploader can also help. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:STALK

Please stop harrassing me and attempting to subvert the Featured Wikipedia Article Film Booking Offices of America. Thank you.—DCGeist 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you offer something to substantiate your (rather serious) charge? I've never heard of you or that article until less than an hour ago. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

::Your recent efforts to delete a substantial portion of the content of this Featured Article--which is in precisely the same state that it was when it was vetted and passed by the FAC process just over two months ago--constitutes prima facie evidence of your intent to subvert it. As the Wikipedia contributor who has clearly assumed responsibility for maintaining the article and its contents, this series of unprovoked attacks on the article constitute effective harrassment of me. Whatever your motivation, your behavior is a clear and serious affront to the Wikipedia mission, its community, and its spirit.—DCGeist 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't take content disputes as a personal attack or harassment. A calm response to something to disagree with will go far to resolving the issue. --Haemo 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe you misperceive this as a "content dispute." This isn't about content; it's about a user's mission that is really quite oblivious to the spirit of Wikipedia and the specifics of its content. User has decided that significant content of a recently promoted Featured Article should be deleted for the sort of basic reasons that would have been considered and passed on in the FAC process. He has done this without taking up his concerns on the article's Talk page or with the person obviously primarily responsible for maintaining it according to Wikipedia FA standards. The result is an egregious and pointless waste of Wikipedians' time in addition to, as I spelled out quite carefully, effective harassment.—DCGeist 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an obvious content dispute. Your incivility and disrespect for the views of other editors are not helping anyone here — least of all, yourself. If the case is as clear as you make it, then the discussion should be over quickly. A good faith disagreement with another editor is not the end of the world, nor is it an excuse to level a whole variety of personal attacks against them. --Haemo 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, with respect, if three warnings against personal attacks haven't worked, I don't think a fourth one will. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize for flying off the handle the other night. I had been being Wikistalked for real earlier in the day and, without thinking, connected that set of incidents with this matter. As a result, I went well over the line in using uncivil and inflammatory language in addressing you here and on the noticeboard (where I'll apologize next). My belligerent behavior clouded the more important issue: I do believe that the way the IfD process is currently operating is deeply contrary to both the spirit of Wikipedia and to its ultimate purpose. As you can see, I have struck out much of my intemperate language above, while leaving the material I largely stand by (even if I might have turned a phrase or two slightly differently). I certainly admire your work in increasing Wikipedia's store of free imagery--that's a truly valuable endeavor. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, thank you for your gracious apology. It is unreservedly accepted. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Thanxs for the message regarding the screenshot I uploaded. Unfortunately, I do not have any PD pics of Christian Finnegan. =(

Also, according to your user page, you're part of the US Air Force. If it's not too much trouble, can you please add your name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch? Thank you for your time and have fun editing! Jumping cheese 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow...you're good at getting pics under free license. Have fun editing/uploading I'll see you around. Thanxs for the message too. =) Jumping cheese 23:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will Ferrell images

I've corrected a few problems relating to the Will Ferrell images you tagged. I provided Fair Use rationales for two, and moved two images to a more appropriate section of the Will Ferrell article. Hopefully everything is now in compliance. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Drewcifer3000 05:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Drewcifer, thanks for getting in touch with me. The placement of the images is definitely better and the rationales are hugely improved. I have a concern that Image:OldSchool.jpg accompanies an article section that really doesn't discuss his role in the film in such a way that a non-free image would be required for reader understanding (per WP:NFCC#8). Videmus Omnia Talk 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

Videmus Omnia for the Air Force. Semper Fidelis for the Marines. I don't know that the other services have Latin mottos. I wonder what the Latin translation would be for "The caissons go rolling along?" :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there even a Latin term for "caisson"? (It's been a long time since the Jesuits had a crack on hammering Latin into my head.) Are new Latin words invented for more modern concepts? I wonder what the Latin is for "computer" or "space station". In any event, with all due respect to my Army brethren, I don't think Latin is in common usage in their ranks. </good-natured interservice rivalry>. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry for stalking, but) may I ask you why the (US-)Americans, the Brits and the Germans are so obsessed with Latin words? In Italy Latin was taught at "middle school" to students aged 11 - 14 y/o, that happened until 1977/78, when it was abolished. Ppl "jumped for the joy" (an italian idiomatic sentence) after that abolition. Despite what the establishment tries to make you believe, in Italy common ppl and also the greatest part of University students hate old latin (with the exception of a very little minority comprising old-fashioned "intellectuals"), for a lot of reasons that maybe are even difficult to understand if you have ever lived here. That happens both in Southern and Northern Italy.
This is a personal note: if I were in UK or USA and I were offered a career with USAF or RAF, I would say "no thank you", just to avoid to listen to those mottoes or read Latin terms that are written on badges and so on. But please do not take it personally, I do not hate the military staff or smg like that. Best regards.--Doktor Who 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, Latin and Greek are regarded as signs of a comprehensive education in the English-speaking world, and Latin mottoes, for some reason, are believed to lend an air of respectability to any enterprise. I'm not sure of the origins of that belief, but I'm sure it's very old. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewel ad

The reason I posted it is that various other posters thought Jewel was still using Albertsons' slogans and had reverted the slogan I provided which was the correct one. Without the ad, I do not have a verifiable source for the assertion. Now, if the other people reflected in the history would leave the template alone.... However, I do not have a text source for the assertion; Jewel did not update their Albertson's created website. Busjack 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - interesting point! I don't see any commentary on the slogan aside from two mentions of it - is this controversial enough to need a source? If so, I recommend cropping the image to just the slogan part (It's hard to read in the current image) and including a reason in the use rationale as to why the image of the slogan is needed. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if this is the way you plan to go, please leave a comment at the IfD page - thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I response you to this messege. From the EMail to the site of the band it was told me that the name of the fan who took it and sended it to them is Genadiy, but he didn't tell them his lastname. M.V.E.i. 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the image? Also, if you have an e-mail permission, please forward it to WP:OTRS - see this page and section for instructions on how to do this. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Shure i can. Here http://littletragedies.com/news_e.htm I didnt keep what they responsed me on EMail, but you can ask if you like on their EMail info@littletragedies.com M.V.E.i. 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they sended me 3 photos and said i can use them all wherever i like, but i chose this one because it's the best quality and it's their current line-up. It was also the photo used in the interview the band gave to an Italian site http://www.arlequins.it/pagine/articoli/corpointerviste.asp?chi=170 M.V.E.i. 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - if you could, please add the source to the image description page. I'm afraid e-mail will have to be forwarded to OTRS to confirm the PD status of the image, since it's not currently verifiable. Could you possibly contact them again if you don't have the original e-mail? If the copyright status can't be verified, I fear the image will be deleted, since it can easily be replaced with a free image of the band. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I added this information. Actually i planned to add this information today anyway. If you want you can contact them, because i dont know how i will send you the letter-file once i recive it. If you could do it and be a witness to the fact they said it it will be really nice. You can send the EMail in English they have an exelent English. Hope you agree. M.V.E.i. 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will try to contact them this weekend. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :-) M.V.E.i. 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You the man!

The Photographer's Barnstar
In recognition of his dedication and commitment to obtaining free-content photographs of living persons, I am pleased to confer this Photographer's Barnstar on Videmus Omnia. BrokenSphereMsg me 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Interesting to see what some people have sent you, "eye-catching" would be a bit of an understatement, but I dare not say too much. O___O

In your essay on how to present yourself, i.e. by having a professional user page, how much personal information should you disclose? Personally I refuse to put out too much about myself on my user page (I've seen a couple of examples where this turned out horribly wrong for the users who did, leading them to leave the project). BrokenSphereMsg me 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the much-appreciated compliment! In regards to real identity, I put my real full name in my e-mails, but not on my user page. (Just my first name, so they know that I am the same person if they visit the page.) I think it gives more credibility to use a real name in a photo request as opposed to a user handle, especially when dealing with "respectable" institutions or notable people. If you're interested in trying something like this, let me know if I can offer any advice, I'm glad to help! Videmus Omnia Talk 21:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smile

TotesBoats has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TotesBoats 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wichita Massacre images -- again

Law enforcement agencies don't copyright their mugshots. That's all you need to you know. In fact, I don't understand why you didn't know that already. There is already a mugshot template, as well as a long discussion on the topic. How is it that you didn't know this?
The Carr mugshots were taken at the Sedgwick County Courthouse; hence, the link to the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department. The only way you can find the images on the site is if you're a law enforcement officer and have password access to the criminal records on the site. Nevertheless, the images are still stored there. But the images are considered public domain, and have therefore been published freely in newspapers -- and on the web (Crime Library) -- since the year 2000.
I trust that this puts an absolute end to any further questions about the mugshots "copyright status", as the mugshots will remain in the article. -- J.R. Hercules 05:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has to take any action to copyright anything, it's automatic. The law on government-entity copyrights varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If they were federal government mugshots then they're likely PD. If they're state or local, they're probably not. Regardless, the copyright holder has to be demonstrated per WP:NFCC#10 and the information has to be verifiable. I'm sorry, but if you believe they're not copyrighted you have to demonstrate this. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but can you demonstrate that the law on government-entity copyrights varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Also, can you demonstrate that state and local mugshots aren't public domain? -- J.R. Hercules 05:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and the references therein. Many states and local jurisdictions do in fact release that information to the public domain, but it must be verified. --Pekaje 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The other problem is that we don't know the copyright is owned by Sedgwick County - there's no verification of that. For an example of good research on a photo's copyright holder, see Image:Amyphoto.jpg. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jasmine image

I was simply unaware that there were still fair use violations in revision history. It did not occur to me that the first admin who edited the page simply did not delete them. I'm sure if you took a second to look at the revision, you would've understood the situation clearly. 71.179.85.101 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, try not to assume everything is vandalism so quickly. I'm sure the twinkle scripts offers several other options. 71.179.85.101 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the term "vandalism" in the edit summary. Please, in the future, don't blank maintenance templates without verifying that the issue has been resolved. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

RE: Bradley Joseph. On the contrary, thanks for having the patience with me. I don't think I could put up with the BS that you get, and you always keep a level head, but your work here is indeed valuable and you are to be commended. I do understand that FAs especially need to be held up to higher scrutiny so they can be seen as examples and my ultimate goal is do be compliant. I will work on reducing the sound files over the next few days because looking now, I believe I've screwed up and calcuated 10% of say a 3:50 song as being "35" seconds, figuring like one would figure 10% of money but that is not right. I need to multiply x 60 seconds and then divide by 10%. (duh) So thanks for the heads up. Commons would be fine bwt for the image. Thanks again. ♫ Cricket02 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm not sure I understand about the sampling rate? ♫ Cricket02 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough by all you've done, I am overwhelmed by your kindness. And the samples sound so much better and was completely above and beyond. I must admit to being technically challenged and it took me probably six months (off and on) to finally figure out just the basics of creating audio files (oggs, converting, Audacity, etc.) I will work on getting others compliant and if you can offer any tips, that would be welcome. Many blessings to you. Cheers! ♫ Cricket02 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JPG/PNG

There are times when JPGs are a more efficient format than PNGs, usually due to photographic details in the image. PNGs offer the convenience and efficiency of optimized palletes, but often at the cost of noticeable dithering. For instance, an 8-bit version of Image:GunBarrelPhoto.jpg I rendered as a test showed either color banding or dithering and weighed in at 58kb as a .png vs only 22 as a higher quality jpg. The best images to tag for png conversion don't have many color gradients and have relatively simple geometric structures. Logos, for instance, are usually perfect candidates for the png/svg treatment. Photographic images are best handled by jpegs. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on a conversation, but that is not true. When you're talking about noticeable dithering you are thinking of the GIF format which is limited to 256 colors. The PNG format is not bound by this limit. The PNG format is also able to handle gradients quite well, see the discussion of PNG compression filter methods at Portable Network Graphics#Compression. JPEG, Joint Picture Experts Group, is best for photographic data, as its name implies. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about 8-bit PNGs, you can have palettes with a greater bit depth. There's definitely a filesize/performance ratio, and sometimes JPGs win out. The point is that PNGs aren't usually the best choice for film/tv screenshots. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) That's strange, I can understand your confusion. I'm not sure exactly what the context of RTD's advice was, so I'll just elaborate a little more on the subject. There are two reasons to convert JPGs to PNGs: 1) improve the image quality; 2) reduce file size / server load. MediaWiki software has to perform less processing on PNGs to scale them since JPGs need to be un/re-recompressed to render thumbnails. Yet this concern is moot because thumbnailed images are cached for future use, so ultimately filesize is more important than just format. (And quality is more important than either.) As WP:IUP#Format implies, JPGs are more efficient for photorealistic images with greater color depths, but introduce artifacts when under heavy compression. So it works both ways, sometimes PNGs provide for better quality and smaller filesize, sometimes they don't. After a while you can tell by glancing at the image which way it's going to go, and advanced image editors have tools to preview and optimize filesize depending on the format. If you'd like to try playing around with image formats to get a sense of what I'm talking about, try IrfanView. While IV isn't a full-featured suite, it allows for fast, easy conversions and basic fixes. As for tagging images, I guess the best guideline would be to go by the amount of photographic detail. I'm sorry if all this just added to the confusion :-/ ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You might know this already, but you can also use programs like optipng and pngout to losslessly recompress PNG files, thus reducing their file size. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Until this is resolved, I'll tag comic book/vidgame stuff as {{ShouldBePNG}}, and hold off on photorealistic images. Thanks, both of you, for the advice. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, for photographic data (photos, scans, TV and film screenshots) use JPEG. For non-photographic data (comic books, software and video game screenshots) use PNG. For diagrams use SVG if possible, otherwise PNG. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. I think we were talking past I each other - I meant TV screenshots, you meant computer screenshots. Thanks again. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:48, 26 August 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
Transmetal
USS Lexington (Star Trek)
Orion Pax
Casey Biggs
Aron Eisenberg
Roger C. Carmel
Seekers (Transformers)
Greg Cox
Tripredacus Council
DeForest Kelley
Lithone
Max Grodénchik
Micromasters
John Schuck
Sybok
T'plana-hath
Rosalind Chao
Protoform
Grand Nagus
Cleanup
D. C. Fontana
Super Star Destroyer
V for Vendetta (film)
Merge
Orion Syndicate
Orion (Star Trek)
AOL
Add Sources
Order 66
The Star Trek Encyclopedia
Cliff Williams
Wikify
Mr. Marcus
Bank of North America
Decipher, Inc.
Expand
Nana Visitor
Ethan Phillips
Star Trek games

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 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

No the page shouldn't have lots of images. But I really think it is approriate to have an image of the biggest film of that year. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eventually I hope they will be more than just lists and wil be full of encyclopedic information. One single image out of the several hundred of films to help gain an understanding of the most prominent film ought to be permitted ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from - at the very least the image needs to have a fair use rationale for use in that particular article. I'm sorry if this is a hassle - I honestly do have a an incredible appreciation for the film work you've done. I'm planning on trying to bring Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan up to GA-status and I plan on using your work as an example. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I completely respect your views on images - I am also all for standardizing images with a rationale.- it does make the encyclopedia look more professional - after all we can't claim a free encyclopedia if the whole thing is plastered in copywrighted images!!! However in regards to films, it is practically impossible to gain a free image of the film - and one of the keep forms of media to understanding a film is the picture and with the film pages we are mentioning several hundred films!!!!! If anything I would prefer to use just one singular screen capture of the biggest film of that year rather than a poster as just a small insight into them. I really feel they can contribute to the strength of the article - is it possible I could write in a detailed film rationale to explain why the film is of the uttermost importance to that year in cinema history?

Hey this is my progess so far:

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also some notes on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Note cast always comes after plot. Also the cast is too long - mostly we don't include all of the cast just the main actors. I'd cut off the cast at Kevin Rodney Sullivan. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A trekky fan huh? Yes for the cast section have a look at Goldfinger (film) as an example of layout -good luck with the development of it. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest using Casino Royale (2006 film) as an idea for layout. At the Bond and WP Films project we think this is a pretty good model - Jaws (film) also is good but strangely is missing a cast section yet it is an FA! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ernst! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale for Image:Titanic poster.jpg. I don't want to make a habit out of adding extra rationales but for the number of 1 of each year I really think it is needed. PLease let me know if this meets your reviewing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance for 2007 I added a free image of Tobey Mguire at a premiere to identify the Spiderman film-but somebody removed it as they thought it wasn't good enough. I wish there was some way to obtain free images of films!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ernst. I'm not going to dispute the usage, but I'm not totally comfortable putting my name on the FUR template for that particular article. I'm going to leave the image be and take it off my watchlist. Thanks again! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm using a different image for Titanic anyway now - a screenshot which is more informative and I have added a full rationale. I see you havebeen assessing them as the commons do good work. Yes that old photo of Kiel with that dodgy hawaiian shirt was not good!! Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey check out my edits on French cinema today!!!! I've begun building it up starting with the French films of the 1920s. Eventually all links will have full articles. There are some classics in French film ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin (2)

I'd be grateful if you could express any opinion regarding the message I posted above; hopefully you don't see it as a trolling; I am very serious on such imnportant issues.Doktor Who 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image fair use rationale warnings

Thanks for the warnings that you left on my Talk page. I thought that these came from a bot. I shouldn't think that there would be too many more left to be issued to me, but I would prefer a list with one instance of boilerplate text than the above, if possible. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masaharu Homma page

Hello, You have tagged the subject page as unbalanced. Wondering what you feel is unbalanced about it? Maybe you could add your thoughts to the discussion page. thanks. Zatoichi26 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I wanted to come by and leave you a message. Since a lot of time has passed, I think our initial misunderstanding and anger (on both sides) petered out, and I wanted to let you know that I harbor no ill will anymore. You are truly here to help make this encyclopedia better, which I really didn't think was your intention back when you left all those messages on my page. Since then I've been noticing your edits, and my anger changed to admiration. My own father was in the Navy (retired in 2002 after 27 years), and I can't help but feel an unspoken appreciation and kinship between us in regards to military service, even though I don't know you personally. In any case, I'm babbling; I wanted to let you know that I'm sorry we had that misunderstanding, and I don't think you're evil or whatnot. Whether that even mattered to you is all you, but I thought about it, and wanted to let you know how I felt now. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:VigilancePrime

I'm sorry, but what VigilancePrime did was just fine. Copy-and-paste moves in article space are a bad thing, but I've never seen anyone suggest that pages have to be "moved" into userspace to preserve content. If he had done so, it would automatically have created a redirect into userspace, which is forbidden per WP:CSD#Redirects and would have caused a mess that an admin would have had to clean up.

it would automatically have created a redirect into userspace - Apparently you've never heard of speedy deletion tags: do you need a refresher? You've also apparently never heard of GFDL: do you need a referesher on that, too? --Calton | Talk 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comments you've recently left at the talk pages of myself and VigilancePrime, I politely ask that you remember there is a human being reading the comments that you leave. There's no need to be rude or confrontational

You two first, especially VigilancePrime. You might also start by not positing obvious nonsense and relying upon waving your all-purpose shield as a deflection when challenged on it.

I would welcome rewording or retraction of some of the things that you've said, thanks.

Nope. So, have you heard of GFDL? And to refresh your memory, {{db-rediruser}} is the tag you apparently didn't know about. --Calton | Talk 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbels children

What do you still have a problem with?

I thought we were clear on the individual portraits as "fair use"? The family group is almost certainly copyrighted to either Joseph Goebbels estate or the defunct "German Newsreel Company" (both impossible to trace) and seems "fair use" to me. The gallery is gone. The other two photos can go if you really think they should, but there isn't a lot of sense in tagging the carticle without explaining the specific problems on "talk".

I WANT the corpse photos gone in the name of common sense and good taste, but cannot get concensus. --Zeraeph 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just removed the corpse photos on realising that they had to be published before 1946 (no information on this) and that the creator had to have died before 1946 for them to be in public domain in accord with soviet copyright law. I refuse to attempt a "fair use" rationale for them myself, which is not to say that nobody else will. --Zeraeph 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was talking about the family portrait photos - they have partial rationales, but most do not specify the copyright holder - this is required per WP:NFCC#10a - also, some do not have any source at all. Also, they need copyright tags - see WP:ICT for guidance on this. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The copyright holder is actually unknown (I have the book and have gone over it with no success), but, as they were Xmas portraits can be reasonably presumed as Josef Goebbels. The family group was taken on Goebbels 45th birthday. As this is a biographical article the WP:FAIR USE aspect is clearly applicable here if it is ever applicable anywhere. --Zeraeph 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources are clearly stated the copyrights cannot be "fixed" any further than they are short of holding a seance and citing it. WP:FAIR USE is as clear as can be, followed to the letter, and applicable here. I have no idea what further preoblem you could possibly have but unless you can explain something further that is physically, realistically, possible, in terms of these specific (or any similar) images, I suggest we begin the dispute resolution process asap over the status of WP:FAIR USE versus deletion. Because if these images have to be deleted then so should every single WP:FAIR USE image om Wikipedia, so let us establish a policy to that effect through dispute resolution rather than making a "special case" of these particulr images. --Zeraeph 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shrubbery

I almost laughed out loud (suppressed because I am in a library)  :D --Iamunknown 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg

My good use of this image was removed. Anyway, has this image been on the Main Page or is it in the que to be on the Main Page? Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been on the main page yet - it should be in the queue, though. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Aged aqueducts make contrasting scenic background for modern images"!!! Wow. Good try, but I have to say I can understand why it was removed. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
An IP removed the image from Aqueduct. Anyway, I'm still working on a way to include it in Corona. Haven't thought of anything yet. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion review closed counter to discussion

Videmus, could you take a look at this deletion review - you'll remember this one - and help me understand how an admin deletes the images in spite of the "vote," discussion, and general consensus being on the side of the images being satisfactory? I'm sure I'm missing something, and this is much more your area of expertise. Prima facie, it has the appearance of an admin deciding unilaterally instead of voicing on the discussion. There were more "keeps" than "deletes" and much better fair-use rationale than non-usability rationale. Thanks in advance! VigilancePrime 07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if the closing admin decided that the photos were in fact replaceable by free images. Decisions at WP:IFD sometimes tend to be more policy-based than consensus-based, in my experience. If you think that the closing admin made a bad call here, and you would like the deletion reconsidered, the best place to make your case would be Wikipedia:Deletion review. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Why bother. I washed my hands of that project. I can als\ways claim the entire original writing. I appreciate your time and assistance, though. I'll refocus my efforts elsewhere on Wiki now. Hey, that is still a huge, thorough page and it would still be a redirect had I not worked on it. :-) VigilancePrime 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! I find it pretty amazing that it was just a redirect before. You'd think someone would have tackled that prior to you, but you did a great job on it. Sorry about the pictures. :( Videmus Omnia Talk 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dixie Square Mall Interior.jpg

You have tagged this (Image:Dixie Square Mall Interior.jpg) as being replacable, but from what I gather, there is a couple things. This is now private property, a condemed building so you may not enter unless you tresspass. Also, some of the mall has been destroyed already, so I am not sure that this is a replacable image and can easy fall into Fair Use.--Kranar drogin 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The building still apparently exists in some form, so someone could make or obtain a free image. The article or fair use rationale doesn't specify why it's necessary to show the state of the mall in 2004. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with you on this, that is why I didn't fight it at all. I would go take a pic of it, but not worth me going an hour and a half to do so, got plent to take pics of here right in my home area. Thanks again!--Kranar drogin 15:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userfying

You are wrong to say that User:VigilancePrime was right to copy-paste move a trivial autobiography. Userfying vanity pages is done like this:

  1. Move the page to the user page using the Move button.
  2. Tag the remaining redirect with {{db-rediruser}}
  3. Leave a note on the user's talk page, the {{nn-userfy}} template exists for this but you can write your own polite notice.

Cut and paste moves have to be fixed by administrators, it takes time and most admins have better things to do than fix cut and paste moves of non-encyclopaedic content. Deleting the redirect is much quicker, and the speedy deletion queue also get much more attention than the noticeboard for fixing cut-and-paste moves (which I can't even remember). Cut and paste moves violate the GFDL so are always wrong, however good the motivation. No biggie, just so you know. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, Yeah, I understand that now. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some expertise needed

Hi, Videmus. See my edit warring ;-) at Pope Benedict XVI. I don't actually care which image is used, from the point of view of which one is better, but I have some reason to be unsure that the one I'm removing is a free image. In fact, I have some reason to be unsure that some of the other images uploaded by the uploader are as free as they are claimed to be. They seem to come from websites that don't give any indication of using GFDL. Any advice appreciated. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image template

Alright, it looks good, thanks for your help! :) Ejfetters 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breakthrough role

I've answered your request -sorry I was a bit late in reaponding but I've been very busy formatting all the French and German municipalities. It is a start but at present is based on original research. Ok? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Wow, the first? Many thanks for the barnstar, VO. I'm still gritting my teeth and grumbling about Fair Use, but I do understand where you're coming from and respect your image work here. Hope I wasn't too shrill and pouty with that rant I left here a while ago... I'm still puttering around here a bit, and will jump in full-time again around early October. Until then, take care, and happy editing. Dekkappai 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VO. There's a concern that's been working on me for a while, and since this is your area of specialization, perhaps you can shed some light (or darkness) on it-- In the spirit of anti-Fair Use-ism, is it likely that film poster images (even if used and labeled properly according to today's rules) are going to eventually be disallowed? Dekkappai 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Dekkappai, I certainly haven't heard anything along those lines. Film posters used for identification on an article about the film are pretty noncontroversial - sort of like album covers used to illustrate the album articles or company logos used to illustrate the company articles. This sort of usage seems to be specifically sanctioned by the Foundation's licensing resolution (at least in my opinion). Videmus Omnia Talk 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, VO. I know there are no guarantees here, but with your knowledge of the subject, I'll sleep easier, and contribute film articles with less worry, with that answer. Dekkappai 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Removal of image tags

Well, I studied the instructions for several minutes, & my understanding of what they said was that if they met the guidelines & should not be deleted, to remove those tags. I'm not disputing that they are fair use; however, I found those images met the criteria to not be deleted. Since I apparently misunderstood the instructions, they need to explain how to mark these images as "keep" or "don't delete". (As a sidenote, several images I looked at that I wasn't convinced were justifiable "keeps" I did not touch; I'd rather spend the energy on cases I felt followed the rules than on those that might not.) -- llywrch 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this is more complex than it would first appears. I re-read & attempted to follow the instructions with Image:Janeway Season7.jpg. Is the end result correct? -- llywrch 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Another question: what if more than one version of the image appears to pass muster? Save all that do? Or only keep the best image? -- llywrch 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the instructions at Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old, all the old revisions that are not in violation of WP:NFCC should be kept. Thanks again for working the backlog! Videmus Omnia Talk 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use

Was there any sort of scripts you used when you dealt with fair use problems? ~ Wikihermit 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The only script I used in that role was User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, which tags the image, looks up and notifies the uploader, and, if necessary, creates a listing at WP:PUI, WP:IFD or WP:CV. Twinkle has some functionality in that area, but I always preferred Howcheng's tool.Videmus Omnia Talk 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, with an image like Image:PCAndy.jpg, it has fair use rationale for a page that has been deleted. However it is used in two pages with no rationale for use on those pages. What's the right tag? ~ Wikihermit 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just remove the image from the articles with no rationale for its use there with the edit summary "removed images with no rationale for use in this article per WP:NFCC#10c". Alternatively, tag the article with {{non-free}} and drop a note on the talk page with the problem (if you think the usage could be valid with the right rationale.) Videmus Omnia Talk 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If this leaves the image orphaned, tag it as such. Alternatively, you could just fix the rationale for one or more of the articles (I used to this frequently - sometimes articles get moved, merged, etc. and the rationale doesn't catch up.) Videmus Omnia Talk 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that image needs to be removed from Tom Price (actor) as a WP:NFCC#1 violation. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about film captures

Hello, I noticed all your work with screen cap tagging, and I have a small question for you, hopefully you can shed some light on the matter. I understand that screen caps are allowed, with fair use rationale of course, if they are non-replaceable and discussing the subject in question. But, what about film screen captures from films that just came out in theaters and haven't been released to the public in any other manner. How would they acquire the screen cap, other than illegally taking a picture or video illegally in a movie theater? If this is the case, should it not be deleted then? If it was taken from a website, then it would still be a screen capture, and would still be traced back to its original original as well I would assume, or need to be cited from that. What do you think? Ejfetters 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting question in regards to WP:NFCC#4. I think, provided the image met all the other criteria and this was the only concern, that it would be OK. The requirement is that the non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia, and I think releasing to movie theaters counts as this. It would be a different story if the film had not yet been released (unless the capture is coming a trailer or other publicity material that the film company has, in fact, published outside Wikipedia prior to the film's release). The main thing to consider is that the copyright information is verifiable - if a Wikipedian could go to a theater and verify that, yes, the image came from that film, then it should be OK. Just my opinion... Videmus Omnia Talk 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(Butting in. . .) Showing a film in a theater is a "publication", as numerous precedents show, so I don't think #4 is a concern. I'd be more concerned about #2. In general, I wouldn't worry about these, since breaking the law to get an image doesn't change the copyright status -- I'd just make sure it passes #3, #8, etc. My 2 cents. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, here's an interesting sidenote that I don't know why I totally forgot this. I was watching TV today and low and behold, a preview came on for the film. So regardless of what I said, previews are aired on TV and DVD's of other films, and the internet, so they can find them there, so my initial discussion, is proved wrong, by myself in fact hehe. Ejfetters 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baywatch

Ahh you removed one of my images of the pretty Baywatch Hawaii girls. All you have to do is ask for the rationale man. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember it - sorry about that. I'm not doing non-free image work any more anyway. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taglish

Hello again, VO. I was reading about Taglish, but I'm confused about the examples it gives. It lists phrases in Tagalog, Taglish, Filipino (1989-2000, 2007), Filipino (2001-2006), and English, but it doesn't explain why they split Filipino into years like that. The Filipino language article says it's basically "standardized Tagalog", but the history section doesn't give any indication about what might have changed in 2001, and reverted back in 2007. Any ideas? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there's no reason for the time frames. It's an interesting subject - we've had ABS/CBN on the television pretty much continuously in my house for the last 8 or 9 years, and I can say firsthand that the English infusion into Tagalog has been steadily increasing. It's most noticeable when they air old movies from the Marcos era, which are nearly pure Tagalog, which you can then compare with current entertainment, which is liberally sprinkled with English. Taglish is a good term for this - while you sometimes hear nearly complete English sentences, most often English words are intermixed with Tag in sentences constructed with Tag grammar rules. I've only noticed this with Tagalog and not so much with regional dialects, like Visayan, Pampangan, or Ilocano. The process seems to be accelerating, possibly due to the fact that so many of their popular entertainment stars are Eurasians who have come to the P.I. from the U.S., Australia, or Europe.
Anyway, forgive my long digression, the short answer is that I can't imagine the reason for the time frame specification, except that perhaps it came from a source that contained some kind of time-frame statistical analysis that was arbitrarily broken down that way for purposes of comparison. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
On a hunch, I tried matching up the dates with changing regimes (Marcos was behind the big push for making Tagalog the standard national language, calling it "Filipino" and making it mandatory in schools), but no dice. 1989 was in the middle of the Aquino regime, with no policy change there that I'm aware of, and while Arroyo took over from Estrada in 2001, there was no change in policy here that I'm aware of. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On a sidenote...

This would look better as a header: User:Wikihermit/box

~ Wikihermit 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, hayell, as long as we're being political. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
>:o ~ Wikihermit 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Wikihermit, I don't know if you're going to see this, but why did you retire? Was it harrassment about image tagging? Videmus Omnia Talk 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Should Image:N2200176860_37894.jpg be removed from the article it is in because it doesn't have a rationale to be in that article? Alpta 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NFCC#10c. It also has no source, which is a WP:NFCC#10a problem. If that is fixed, the image needs to renamed (tag it with {{rename image}} or {{ifr}}) and converted to PNG format (tag it with {{ShouldBePNG}}. Those last two changes are in accord with WP:NFCC#6 - i.e. the image use policy. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meredith Eaton-Gilden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne McCaffrey photo

Just wanted to say thank you for finding the current photo for the Anne McCaffrey article. The previous photo was really dreadful. This one is much better. Again, thank you. Vgranucci 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I've always liked her work, and started looking for a photo when I saw the entry at WP:BLPN. It just took a while for the response to come back from the photographer. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dolcett

I have seen that the article Dolcett has been deleted. Do you have any idea of what can be done to challenge this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like you already took it to deletion review. That's the correct forum. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meredith Eaton

Good job on her article. Great picture finds as well. I always liked her on Family Law. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I actually came across hitting 'random article' looking for photos to request. She replied to the request, and once I looked into it, her article seemed worthy of expansion. I've actually never seen her on television, except I think I remember her guest appearance on House and possibly CSI. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, she's great. She was able to match presences like Dixie Carter. That isn't easy to do. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northside High School Article

About the Northside High School article. Mr. Z-Man sent me an message about what you posted on the administrator's page about me saying that I'm going to bitch slap someone for making changes to the NHS page by deleting the band. let me just say that the band is a major part of the page and that's why whenever someone deletes stuff about the band i just undo it. That day I was just really pissed off and wrote stuff that I didn't mean. hope none of it offended you. chrismaster1 8, September 2007 15:24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismaster1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't remember the incident you're referring to. I don't think I would have been personally offended anyway, but thank you for the apology in any event. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Hi! I know you're one of the people who might consider themselves an image patroller? Well, recently I started doing a little bit of this work and I wanted to ask someone more experienced than myself, if I am doing things the right way. I found a copyrighted image with a source but no fair used rationale, so I tagged it. I then removed it from the article it was used in because there was no justification for use. Am I following the right protocol? I don't want to keep doing things my way and then find out later along the line that I've been doing things wrong. Thanks!

Seraphim Whipp 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That should be all right - just include an edit summary citing policy for your action like "removing non-free image with no rationale for use in this article per WP:NFCC#10c". Alternatively, you can leave the image in place pending addition of a rationale - if one isn't added in a week, an administrator should delete the image, and it will be automatically removed from the article by Image Removal Bot. Adding a "deletable image" caption to the image takes care of notification. Another alternative, if the article seems to have plenty of active editors, and you think the usage would probably be valid given the correct rationale, is to tag the article or section where the image is used with {{non-free}} and drop a note on the article talk page.
Instead of using Twinkle to tag images, I recommend using User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. This places the image into the correct dated non-free content deletion categories, instead of simply into C:CSD, and also notifies the uploader. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you very much for taking the time to help me :-). I want to make a better use of my time on wikipedia :).
Seraphim Whipp 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd only actually remove it if that action doesn't orphan the image and it already has a rationale for another page. Otherwise the effect is likely to be nothing more than a delayed deletion, since people may very well be unaware of the missing image rationale. Caption tagging is the best way to handle it, IMO. --Pekaje 13:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I normally only removed the image from the article if the action didn't orphan the image, as Pekaje says above. An exception would be if the image was only used outside the article space, in violation of WP:NFCC#9. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you both :). Although I have one more question... What exactly do I add to my monobook? Is it the whole of the code on the page that was linked?
Seraphim Whipp 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - the installation documentation is at User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again :).
Seraphim Whipp 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wichita Massacre photos

I added a link to the Crime Library page from where I found the mugshots. Hopefully, this is the last of these kind of requests, as it's getting to be a real pain in the neck having to "clarify" and "justify" the copyright status of simple mugshots. Now, apparently, I have to do the same thing for the victims' photographs. It's not like mugshots or photographs of crime victims are commercial images. Enough! -- J.R. Hercules —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Looks like the image has been deleted at WP:IFD. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uhura Image

I noticed that I think it was you, replaced the screencap of Uhura with a free image, since it was taken by NASA. I think the image is great, and was wondering, do you know of any more free Trek character images that we can use? Thanks. Ejfetters 09:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the image on Charles Tucker III can probably be replaced with the image on Connor Trinneer. I haven't been able to find any other ones. Would you like to do the honors? Videmus Omnia Talk 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You've been name-dropped at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Norwich_City_player_of_the_year. Help gratefully received. --Dweller 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Nalts image

What happens if he changes the license? Would we still be able to use it? Would other, potentially commercial entities be able to use it? Ichormosquito 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The license, once given, can't be revoked if we've already made a derivative of the image (which we have, by cropping it and using it here). And yes, someone could take it and use it commercially, so long as they follow the CC-by-SA provisions (which means they have to give attribution, and release it under the same license in accordance with ShareAlike). I'm not an intellectual property lawyer or anything like that, but that's my understanding. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 37 10 September 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones Wikipedia in the news
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. R Delivery Bot 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

An embodiment of a hard-working Wikipedian
An embodiment of a hard-working Wikipedian

Videmus Omnia,

Thanks for all your hard work on image deletion over the past several months! Sorry to see your retirement from the project, but I'm sure whatever new areas of Wikipedia you decide to work on will be greatly enhanced by your presence. I'm sure I'll be asking you image questions in the future, to tap your expertise. Thanks again, and all the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, brother - that means a lot, coming from you. Yeah, this sucks, especially given the circumstances. I actually really enjoyed the work, despite the drawbacks. Of course I'm happy to help with advice, which seem to be uncontroversial (so far). Who knows - perhaps circumstances will change in the future and I'll be able to come back. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you think size reduction tagging would be too controversial, because I wouldn't mind seeing Category:Non-free image size reduction request repopulate a bit. Either that or I'll finish my query script that traverses non-free image categories in search of large images. --Pekaje 01:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ready to put your sleuthing hat on? Is Image:Alyson Hau.jpg (or a previous version) really available under a free license? Is User:Alysonhau the subject/copyright-holder? See here for details, and good luck! This message will self destruct. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's dead now. Oh well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've had the Alysonhau (talk · contribs) blocked per WP:U#Celebrity until this is sorted out, and flagged two other photos as possibly unfree. I sent an e-mail to Alyson Hau to see whether or not this was her - thanks for the heads-up! Videmus Omnia Talk 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I heard back from Ms. Hau and confirmed her identity. The account has been unblocked, and I'll fix up the image descriptions and move them out to the Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Hello Videmus Omnia. Can you please look at commons:Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers#Alpta. Thank you. Alpta 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do - need some time to look over your contribs. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Alpta 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Personal info. removal

Hello. Yes, it appears that no personal info was removed because I did not remove the entire reference ( paragragh ) but I do believe that the full name and location was removed from the article and a large part, if not all, from the history. I'm not experienced with wikipedia so my efforts may hve been sloppy or ineffectual. If I messed up the formatting of your page, I apologise. I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. All of this may simply have been a fools errand or even part of a bait and switch scam. Fools rush in, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipbrooks (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. Videmus Omnia Talk 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, the Mai Lin thing. Videmus Omnia Talk 08:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested undeletion

Done. Good luck. If you cannot get this resolved in a week or so, I will probably delete again. It can then be restored when permission is granted. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. No problem. Keep up the good work. Thanks. Nv8200p talk 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flower Tucci link modification

What that edit looked like was someone adding a referrer code to the URL for Flower's site. That way, if someone signs up for Flower's site, then Flower can send a cash kickback to the person who sent the visitor to her. As you can guess, it's not allowed on Wikipedia and the person adding those links should be treated as any other dirty rotten spammer. Tabercil 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it all makes sense to me now. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies and unblock pages

I'm quoting you:

"enough already - your comment has been seen and acknowledged. using TW"

Are you taking responsibility for false allegations of vandalism against me ?--200.45.6.198 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no - I'm not involved in your dispute. But if you read our guidelines on user talk pages, the fact that he removed your comment can be taken as an acknowledgment that he read it, and repeatedly reposting it can be considered harassment. If you're not satisfied with the response, I recommend following dispute resolution, or posting a report at the admin noticeboard. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to let "him" to think a bit about this for a few days. If I find the disputed pages blocked, say, next week, I'll consider to follow your advise. Thank you. --200.45.6.198 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my user talkpage. I'll think (as I have been advised) about what to do next. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that not only this insolent guy have no way to prove vandalism. He wrote the same yellow box I asked him to erase. --200.45.6.198 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to Videmus Omnia for conspicuous dedication in fighting spam on Wikipedia in the finest traditions of Wiki-service -- "he sees all".--A. B. (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet

I feel i'm being bullied here. Somebosy welcomed my to wikipedia sarcasticly evne though I have 78,000 odd edits. i'm doing my best to build this and fill in gaps in knowledge. All the new Tibet articles had geo locators, altitude information and population info no different to other geo stubs.I've just begun Tilques also and fear they will target my work . Please say somrhting. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why I bother sometimes when I'm treated like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its highly frustating that Demqog is up for deletion when we've just had many new stubs like Witzin and these are permitted , Now why is Witzin and the countless other ones like this a better new article than mine? It doesn't evne have a geo locator, altitude or population . I'm trying to remove systmemaitc bias by more even coverage ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I think communities, especially one this size, are generally notable. As I said at the Demqog AfD, I grew up in an American village of about 100 people, which has a fairly extensive article with census data, etc. I don't believe the article will be deleted. Keep up the good work, brother - don't let things like this get to you. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks buddy. I know - many hamlets with two or three people in the anglo-sphere have articles put these are communities and even have world locators, and some basic geo info. I left this message to him but he refuses to speak:

I genuinely hope all geo stubs however small will eventually have more detailed articles. I'm only trying to help the project grow mate (I call it planting the seeds for us to grow!!). You can't be surprised if I flare up when I'm putting a lot of work in and it doesn't seem appreciated. ALl the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - by the way, I thought for sure one of your articles would be the two millionth, the way you crank them out. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
He's been grossly incivil to me, and I blacklisted him as I'm perfectly entitled to. I listed his articles for deletion according to the deletion policy, it wasn't personal and it's a very bizarre thought that it was.--Rambutan (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this the incivility you refer to? Looks like general frustration to me. Sure, it could be worded nicer, but it's not exactly grossly incivil. As for nominating according to policy, please remember that Wikipedia is consensus driven (by policy). If the consensus is that all cities and villages are notable, then you're not nominating according to policy. It's an honest mistake, but still a mistake. Oh, and reverting legitimate talk page comments as vandalism is exceedingly incivil, IMO. --Pekaje 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Grossly incivil? Mm. Well I'll continue on France before this blows over. Now an article like Tincques should be accpetable. I know that all thes epages I create will eventually have filled out pages . All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've had an unusually difficult period on here the last few days. This is probably the least of it. I seem to have encountered some difficulties with several editors. The vast majority though are very supportive and very helpful yourself included. I just prefer to work in a friendly atmosphere where people work together rather than oppose, - far too much time is wasted in arguing in my view. Its been an eventful few days on here and not the best to be honest- but I'll get through it and hopefully be able to resume my editing soon with the approval of others. Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:USER I can remove any talkpage comments I desire.--Rambutan (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, certainly - but please don't call the removal of good-faith comments "vandalism reversion" or tell good-faith users they are "blacklisted" from posting at your talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image help

Hi again VO. I have received email permission on an image, but the image was sent to me a bit distorted and in bmp format so cannot upload to commons yet. I have no clue how to fix it. Would you be able to help? ♫ Cricket02 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to try - I just e-mailed you my e-mail address so you can forward the image to me for repair. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Picture

Reply on ElinorD's talk page. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville images

Hello Tim, Thanks for messaging me. All Smallville images that I have uploaded are no longer used on the article, so should go ahead on deleting them, I totally agree.

Thanx --Charlie144 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Charlie. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

You comment on my talk page did not specify a problem with image or a solution to the image, merely that you tagged for an alleged invalid fair use rational. I have reviewed the rational and found no problem, so could you procid a simple english explination of what needs to be done to fix the problem and make the tag go away? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, this comes off a little as a snap at you, and I do not intend it to be, its just that I went over these images during the summer so my fair use images would be compliant here so that these damn warning messages wouldn't tax my patience during the school, and now from some reason every updated fair use image I have seems to be getting pinch for non-fair use compliance. Getting these messages and the end of long days is really starting to piss me off, but I should be more respectful on the talk pages of Users who are trying to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you fixed the problem, which was that the rationale didn't specify the article in which the image was to be used. Don't worry, you came across just fine - you should see some of the other messages I've gotten. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dita Von Teese

The image is not decoration. Add the source information. Thirdship 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is used to illustrate the article or text. When was the pic taken? or where was the pic taken? Thirdship 04:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Give why you need the image for the Burlesque section. Thirdship 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The free images were obtained some time ago to replace a non-free book cover & Playboy magazine cover that were used in that paragraph to illustrate her in burlesque costume. Given that the image is free, it can be used anywhere for any purpose, even decoration. I happen to think it's useful there, but I'm not sure what your problem with the images is, given that you won't really answer my question. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Playboy does not matter. The image is lack of source information - unnecessary.
??? The source information is on the image page with the photographer's permission. Sources don't get any better than that! Videmus Omnia Talk 04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The two photographs of the same time - therefore removed a image. Thirdship 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I believe I took care of this OTRS ticket. The photographer's permission is pretty much the best source you can get, Thirdship, so if you have some other problem with the image discuss that. But there is absolutely no problem with the source ~ Riana ⁂ 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Photographer's permission does not matter. Similar image is unnecessary to illustrate her career. The image is not decoration. Thirdship 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. The image is freely licensed now. If you think it shouldn't be used in the article, don't use it. That's not grounds for speedy deletion at all. You may want to read both WP's speedy deletion policy and that of Commons. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The robot might not understand. Thirdship 05:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The bot tags orphaned unfree images. This image is free. Do you believe all the free images uploaded to Commons are in use? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether the image is used or the image is not used for this section - it is editor's freedom. Thirdship 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I still don't understand what the sourcing objection was, but I'll leave the usage issue up to the folks at the Dita Von Teese article. It's not every day a professional photographer donates photos of a notable model under a free license; I just hate to see them go to waste. But OK. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian actor/actress images

HI Videmus this is a bit of a handful so here goes: I have contacted a site called Bollywoodblog.com to ask permission to use their images on wikipedia in eneyclopedia articles. We struggle to find any images whatsoever for current living actors. I've contacted the site to request use of the image of Preity Zinta and they have not only allowed use of this image but images of all actors and directors that appear on the site which is a major breakthorugh for Indian cinema on wikipedia. I am told by one of their top site personnel that their images are exclusive to the site and taken by their own photographers in Mumbai and hence to not need to be protected by copywright,, and would be delighted to contribute to wikipedia with their images as long as they are given credit for them. Here is my email I received:

Hi James

Thank you for writing to Bollywoodblog.com

Our photographers are on the ground in Mumbai and all pictures to Bollywoodblog are exclusive to Bollywoodblog.

We would be delighted to assist you with any pictures of Indian TV actors or film stars you require for Wikipedia. If you let me know what you require specifically we can give you a release.

In return we would appreciate a link back either in the picture attribution or in external links to the actor profile pages on Bollywoodblog which are useful for wikipedia readers

e.g http://www.bollywoodblog.com/tags/Preity%2DZinta/

for more actors see: http://www.bollywoodblog.com/TagMap.aspx/

Devendra.

Devendra has agreed to license all the site images to wikipedia only, under the Creative Commons 2.0. However she doesn't want the images used outside of wikipedia - only for encyclopedic purposes in the articles which means they wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded into the commons. She would like the site to make an official licensing agreement with wikipedia. She said she wouldn't be back in the office until Monday.

The only thing I suspect is gonna by a problem I think is that all images on wikipedia whether they are exclusive to the site or not have to be under some kind of a license where the conditions are completely free to distribute and modify the work with the article in accordance with wikipedia's GFDL policy which allows all its articles to be used commercially. Now the Bollywood site only wants them to be used on wikipedia. This I fear may conflict with wikipedia's licensing agreements. Please let you know if you think an agreement can be made and an image adminstrator you know of or yourself and contact the website and come to an agreement. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the email address:

email address removed

However we use millions of copywrighted images which are apparently distributable in the same way so I believe it should be possible to use somehow as we have a specific approval. Let me know what you can do thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I 've found the appropriate licensing with the commons. Creative Commons 1.0 permssion to use with attribution but must be under the terms of the license. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried about the "Wikipedia only" part of their statement, hopefully we can get them to drop that part, as that's not an acceptable permission. They would have to be uploaded as fair use, and, if they are pictures of living people, they couldn't be used per WP:NFCC#1. I'll drop you an e-mail with an address that you can forward the message to, if you don't mind. I'm happy to see what I can do in regards to helping with this. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SOmething like this. This is just an idea to start with:


I'm going to provide the link to this template to Devendra in Mumbai and ask if it is approved by her. She will see it Monday ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh - unfortunately this permission is a non-commercial license that could only be used with a fair-use image, and fair-use images of the actors would likely be deleted as WP:NFCC#1 violations, unless there are compelling circumstances as to why a free image couldn't be made or obtained. I sent a reply to your e-mail - hopefully we can get Devendra to agree to a CC Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks hopefully we can agree with her for some kind of licensing where we can use and it to not affect other things it would be an extreme shame if she has agreed for us to use the images and for us to not be able to capitalize from it. And yes I made several overly apologetic attempts to make my peace with the user not only once check his talk page history and they were removed. If I have offended anyone I always try to make them know I'm cool with them and to make by peace. Now I think this is uncivil that they can't accept this evne now. Its not my user page you need leave a message on. I feel there's nothing more I can do with Rambutan ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to leave something on your talk page to show that you tried to make peace. I find the behavior inexplicable, but what can you do? Videmus Omnia Talk 13:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note the 2.0 tags were only added to the site by her after our initial discussion believing she was granting us the rights . If we could reach a non-commercial agreement with specific terms with attrivution evne if its the 3.0 type as you say I know there must be one some where we can use legally and clear it. Thanks for your help. The respect you show me is reciprocated. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if it's ver 2.0 or 3.0 (or whatever) so long it's not noncommercial. And I'm happy to help with something like this. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 666 satan images

hey, thanks for the bit of assistance with the 666 Satan image that got flagged today/yesterday/ when ever it was flagged.... what you been up to anyway, havnt talked to you in a while??? Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Same old thing - still working on obtaining free images, and doing some non-free image work. Happy to help! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquaman, etc.

Thanks for tweaking the rationale for Image:Filmation Aquaman1 1960s.jpg, I was actually going to ask you to do just that so I'd have a better template to work from. There are a few more images I've uploaded or that I watch which will need to be adjusted as well. Thanks again. TAnthony 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember that if a high-res version exists in the history, you should tag it with {{subst:furd}} so that the non-compliant version gets deleted. --Pekaje 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks, the heads up is valued.

I have checked whats gone on, and dealt with it by private email, to avoid headaches. if it doesn't change, please keep me informed; I'd value that. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot request

I was wondering if you would consider coding an image renaming bot, along the lines of PNG crusade bot. (The reason I'm asking you is that I have zero coding skills, and this function would be very similar to what PNG crusade bot already does.) What I was thinking is that {{ifr}} could be modified to include a parameter for a suggested new name, and a bot could do the image upload under the new name (if there's no conflict) and replace the name in the articles in which the image is used. What do you think? Videmus Omnia Talk 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea. It's rather messy to re-upload an image, not in the least because the bot is listed as the uploader instead of the original uploader. This causes all those "your image will be deleted because you haven't provided a pre-emptive defense for why we should keep it" messages to land on User talk:PNG crusade bot, where they are largely ignored. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinebot hates my sig

I haven't seen that anywhere. Maybe something changed? (Not the sig.) Thanks for the tip! -- But|seriously|folks  02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's it -- I'm gonna rip that bot's head off! -- But|seriously|folks  02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs)
We'll see who gets the last laugh. I just opted out of automatic signing! -- But|seriously|folks  02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding signed comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs)
Ha, aren't you the troublemaker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) -- But|seriously|folks  02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I should make that my sig! -- But|seriously|folks  02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you just discovered a link between interest in image patrolling and bot humor. -- But|seriously|folks  02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you so much for helping to get the AT&T logos taken care of. I must say that I just about blew my top that my time & effort to add lines to descriptions of the great deal of images the reasonings that they were under fair use was just a waste because a bot determined they weren't fair use since the template wasn't there. KansasCity 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries.... Videmus Omnia Talk 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Haze

Sorry, when I did my edit I didn't see your new image edition. That's all. Purplehayes2006 20:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand, no problem. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leicester Logo

I see what you mean but unless I was missing something I didn't see it actually say you had to the specific action. I'm not up on jargon re pictures, I didn't know what I was missing. As I said on the Bots talk page if it had left a message telling me the problem then I could address it but it didn't. Surely if the Bot can pick up that the image page is missing that specific piece of info it could add it itself. It's not as though it was something that needed to be found, just a wikilink needed adding. If I had not logged on today that image would have gone and I would have had to mess around readding it. I checked the Bots movement and it has sent out loads of these message to English people on a saturday night, so nobody will log on and find out what it's done and thus meaning tons of images deleted. Tons of images deleted because a wikilink is missing, something that this jobsworth Bot and it's runner could correct. Also as I said it has sent out tons of messages so clearly this is something alot of people don;t realise. Another thing, I personally think, Wikipedia could handle a lot better. JimmyMac82 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. However, the bot is unable to make a determination on whether a particular image usage is valid or not, that takes a human. The bots can frustrate a lot of people, but the English Wikipedia is under a time crunch, in that we have until March to get the non-free content in compliance with the Foundation's policy. With hundreds of thousands of existing images, and more added every day, bots are needed to pick up on the obvious problems so that humans can concentrate on the more abstract issues. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hello!! I was wondering if you could help me find an image for Bollywood actress, Kareena Kapoor. I am very confused as to what criterias the images must meet in order to avoid deletion. I've found many images but I'm not sure. Please help me!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You very much!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 1:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No Problem!! Thank You for trying!! I really appreciate it!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album Leaf

Okay, this is all very confusing, but thank you, I guess. I also updated the rationale for Image:Orchestrated.jpg. What do I need to do to convert it to PNG? I am no photoshop wizard. Chubbles 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there some sort of reassurance that I can get from someone that this is the last time I will have to update images to keep them from being deleted? During the last fair-use moral panic, I went and tagged around 100 album covers with fair use rationales, and now I'm being told it wasn't enough. Chubbles 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the PNG conversion, there is a bot that does that (User:PNG crusade bot). The current round of bot checks is verifying that the rationale specifies the article in which the image is to be used per WP:NFCC#10c, so I would just make a quick double-check to ensure your rationales include the article name. It's not a moral panic, it's an attempt to comply with the policy that Jimbo and the Foundation have directed, and the community at en Wikipedia has concurred with. Cheers - Videmus Omnia Talk 05:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit image on Keeani Lei

while what is inappropriate and what is not might be debatable for a website such as Wikipedia, do not fret. mischievous editing by others sharing this ip address will surely be monitored more closely in the future. never have i endeavored to add images to wikipedia and have never heard of this particular pornographic actress. my few edits have been limited to correcting biased statements to be as encyclopedic as i can make them. this can be seen in all the history of 66.90.146.170, excepting the keeani lei (and apparently cellulite?) edits. the last thing i want on this site is to be known as a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.146.170 (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend creating an account, that will prevent you being confused with a vandal sharing the same IP. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question per Ongoing Discussion

You said "does the rationale include the name of the article in which the image is to be used"....in my F-UR's (which I use the same wording for all...just changing call sign/COL/etc), I say the image is from the station's (and I give the call letters) website. I don't actually give a link. Should I? I don't mind switching the way I tag my F-URs.

For an example of my F-UR, please see here, here, and my most recent image uploaded here. If I am doing something wrong in them, please let me know as I can go back through the images I have uploaded and change all the F-URs to correct them. Thanks for your help. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend....NeutralHomer T:C 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Homer - thanks for dropping me a note! The station name doesn't have to be wikilinked, but I would make sure that the station name in the rationale matches the station name in the article title so a bot can verify it (that's the "machine-readable" part of the Foundation resolution). As a example, for Image:WSVG.jpg, I would change "WSVG-AM" in the rationale to "WSVG (AM)" to match the title of the article for which it is used. If you're looking for a standard template for logo fair use rationales, I highly recommend {{logo fur}}, which is excellent and comprehensive. Also, as a housekeeping thing, I recommend that the logos be converted from JPG to PNG format to comply with WP:IUP#Format. (This is just housekeeping, not a deletion criteria or anything.) If you don't want to go through the hassle of doing the conversion yourself, just tag the image with {{ShouldBePNG}} and User:PNG crusade bot will show up and do it for you - you'll just have to keep an eye on things so you can watchlist the new image name if your so desire. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk 19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watermark question

I'm not sure I've quite got a grasp on a point under the digital watermark guides. What are we doing with screencaps from broadcast television sources?

I'm asking in relation to Image:Flashnkidstand.jpg, where you placed {{watermark}}.

The 'mark in the image is from the cable network apparently airing the show. Are we trying to avoid these, or is this something that needs to be noted for the tag to be removed?

Thanks, - J Greb 10:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just a housekeeping thing from my perspective, when it comes to these station logos in the images. As a matter of personal preference, I like to see the logos cropped out (actually, I think it's better if a screenshot is cropped down (per WP:IUP rule #6) to just show the subject of interest, as opposed to the whole frame. But that's just me talking from an aesthetic perspective, if you disagree I have absolutely no problem with removal of the {{watermark}} tag. (Caveat - this applies only to non-free images, user-created images are not allowed to have watermarks per WP:IUP.) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. That does bring up two minor concerns for me though. One is the cropping, which seem to be in conflict with WP:F#Unacceptable images item 2. This may be a minor thing since this particular image is dealing with fictional characters, but it's still a nagging point.
The other is with the 'marks in general. Station logos have pretty much become ubiquitous, with the networks and stations using it as a "you are here" sign not a "this is ours" one. That makes it very hard to come up with appropriate images for some articles or points, since not every show winds up being released on tape or DVD. This is different from a case like the images at http://www.milehighcomics.com/ , where the cover scan have been branded to lay claim to the scan, not the actual cover, and drum up business for that site. The concern I had, and still have, is if Wiki is looking at those as two separate things or if the same rule applies to both. - J Greb 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think counterexample #2 wouldn't be a player for fictional characters - it seems to be talking more about replaceability (WP:NFCC#1), as a free picture of a rose could easily be obtained. On the other hand, a screenshot of Supergirl as she appeared on a particular TV series would not be replaceable by a free image. I don't think the incidental inclusion of the logos is a concern from a copyright perspective, like you said it could possibly be a spam concern, depending on the circumstances. But I'm pretty familiar with the work you do (I see your name all over the place, you're incredibly prolific) and I don't think you need have any concerns in that regard. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts and Opinion Wanted

Yo V.O.! I was wondering if I might be able to bother you for a moment to get your thoughts on an article I wrote. I wrote an entire article from scratch to replace an existing marginal, unreferenced article. (It was easier to start from zero than try to fix.) Before I put it up entirely, I would like a second set of eyes.

Capybara (draft) as opposed to the existing Capybara article.

I'm specifically looking at a few things:

  • Does it overall look and sound good, referenced enough, etc. Also, technical aspects (where I am not as strong and you've helped better before) need checking.
  • I incormorated the information from two other articles - Phoberomys pattersoni and Neochoerus pinckeyi - as their articles were atrocious (one had a single sentence) and will turn those into redirects. What do you think about this and the manner in which I incorporated the information?
  • Lastly, the images and gallery. Like? Dislike? Better ideas with that or the general layout of the page?

When you can; no rush. I just value your perspective and really am uncomfortable with the article as I have written it so far... something's missing. You know that feeling when you walk out the door of your house knowing that you're forgetting something and only 20 minutes down the road does it finally hit you? That's the same feeling I have now... like there's something that I should be seeing, changing... I'm not sure what it is, but I want to see if I can figure it out before going live with this one.

Anyway, thanks so much. Feel free to edit the Drafts page, even if it is technically a "user" page.

Otherwise, hope all's well, VigilancePrime 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

VP, I like the article, it seems a tremendous improvement...I looked over Pekaje's suggestions, and they all make sense to me. Nothing additional jumps out at me, but I'm a little pressed for time this weekend - I will definitely look at it in more detail a little later. In the meantime, I would go ahead and post it in article space if I were you - I think it's definitely ready for that. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Irish st Patricks battalion stamp.jpg

Why are you requesting that the copyright holder of image Irish st Patricks battalion stamp.jpg be identified? The image description clearly identifies it as an Irish stamp. As it is a stamp, the rightsholder can only be the government of Ireland. Crypticfirefly 19:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please add that to the rationale? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The existing description is "Irish stamp." Please explain what information about the copyright holder is missing from the description. Crypticfirefly 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Joefrench.jpg

I am afraid I am a bit confused by your suggestion that the image I loaded of Air Chief Marshal Joe French can be replaced either by a free use image or one that is in the public domain. Under UK law, as I understand it, photos of UK Government officials can be reproduced but the copyright of the UK Government must be clearly marked alongside the image....this I have done. ACM French has now retired and I am unable to find a photo that would be free of UK Government Copyright. If you have found one please advise and I will be happy to use it. Thanks. Dormskirk 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If he's still alive, someone could make or obtain a free image of him. However, there's no incentive for anyone to do so if a non-free image is used on the article. That's one of the reasons for WP:NFCC#1, to encourage the creation of free content. If it helps, I've written a sort of guide to obtaining images under free license, there's a link to it from my userpage. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks...I now understand the point. But I still do not think it will be easy to get a replacement image short of writing to him. Dormskirk 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Make a quick check of Flickr, MySpace, and Facebook, or Google for photos on British milblogs. I've had some good luck this way, even getting some photos of people who have been deceased for some time. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now done a check of Flickr, MySpace, Facebook and Google and the best I can come up with is another (uncropped) copy of the same photo (http://www.rusi.org/images/library/TI44FF096EB97F6.gif). It really does seem that this photo is not replaceable. Dormskirk 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to tell you this, but so long as he is alive, any non-free image of him is considered to be replaceable by a free one. There are exceptions to this; for example, nobody expects to obtain a new free image of Thomas Pynchon because that person is famously reclusive and avoidant of publicity. But unless you can demonstrate circumstances along those lines, I don't think you'll get an exception to policy. IIRC, Jimbo has said it's better to have no photo on an article for ten years rather than a non-free one, if that's how long it takes to obtain a free image. Sorry for the bad news - if you'd like another opinion besides mine, I encourage you to post a note at one of the pages frequented by image policy experts, like WP:FUR or WP:MCQ. With respect - Videmus Omnia Talk 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sabrina Lloyd in Sports Night.JPG

Comment, Please explain to me what a sock user is, I created a wikipedia account because I wanted to have one if I ever so mistake on pages of interest, I live in a house with several other people who could be who you are thinking off. The reason I am uploading this image is because I discovered the image in my folder, I had previously heard of and seen the persons work and decided that since there was no image on her page I might aswell of uploaded the image. I myself have never previously had a Wikipedia account.

I would also like to know if you yourself are in a posiy=tion to upload a free content image of the person in question. MR-WRIGLEY User talk:MR-WRIGLEY MR-WRIGLEY 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Garion96. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about template {{cc-by-3.0-Bollywood-bg}} ?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carnivále images

You commented on my talkpage. It seems what I intentended to be a polite and appropriate notification about the image upload for the Flickr user made him withdraw that license and delete my notice at the responding image Flickr page. Oh well, this experience tells me to be sneekier the next time. Sorry for the trouble. – sgeureka t•c 06:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 38 17 September 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones Wikipedia in the news
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 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Betacommand/Commons

Hi, I'm not sure if you've seen me around WP:PUI and WP:MCQ or not... If you are, would you be willing to sponsor me on the User:Betacommand/Commons page? Thanks, Calliopejen1 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, welcome! Just watch out for the public domain licenses, which can be tricky. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured images

Just for fun, note Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007, and compare it to the nomination of the Merkin pic. The Edwards photo is nowhere near as well done technically, and it's more vulnerable to claims of bias (and less suitable for the main page), but it had less opposition. Very odd. I guess sex is still scary. </soapbox> – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. And I was thinking of nominating one of the photos that is on either the Jenna Haze or Tory Lane articles, because I thought that AnimeNut did a great job on those. But then I remembered that the Merkin pic was supposed to be a "one time only deal". Also, if people freaked over a picture of a model, can you imagine how they would react to a photo of a no-kidding porn star? Videmus Omnia Talk 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awww!

Aww, thank you, dear Tim! :) I'm just delighted that you liked the design, and I cross fingers that it matched your expectations. I had to switch one of your selected pics, because for some reason, the one you had wouldn't display properly. But let's talk about the lovely gift you gave me, and your kind words - you managed to make me blush, and flattered, and gave me a laugh in the process with the new caption! :) I felt evil, rather than an angel >:) I'll cherish that forever, trust me. I hope to see you around a lot, my dear Tim, and make sure to visit me every now and then, no matter if you need some help, or if you just feel like talking, k? Love, Phaedriel - 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Betacommand/Commons

Warning Image now require commons categories Please add [[commons:category:NAME OF COMMONS CATEGOERY]]
Images without categories will not be moved.

βcommand 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Bollywood

Tim great news I think Bollywoodblog has agreed to share images under 3.0 as you suggested. You may want to confirm this but I believe Devendra is pleased with the licensing template I created as it covers all the terms under the agreement. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the official confirmation that we cannuse the images commercially. I'd like it documented on here to any image taggers who are suspicious about all these new images can verify it, Here it is I've emailed you also:

My name is Devendra and I am a Director of Caledonian Publishing, a UK limited liability company that owns the web site http://www.bollywoodblog.com We employ a picture agency in Mumbai to shoot exclusive pictures of Bollywood and Indian TV stars on sets and at press meets. Our pictures are unique and copyright is owned by Bollywoodblog. We have a great database of pictures of current Indian movie and TV stars.

James got in touch to say that he would like to use some pictures for his work on wikipedia. As long time users of wikipedia we would be delighted to allow the site to use Bollywoodblog's exclusive pictures.

James provided this template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bollywoodblog which works for us. We normally license our pictures under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en (i.e. attribution, non commercial) but for Wikipedia we understand that you require a commercial license and so, for wikipedia only, we are happy to license under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Let me know if I can help you with anythine else - we are delighted to be able to help expand the picture repository on Wikipedia.

Kind Regards

Devendra

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was considering moving the tmeplate name to {{cc-by-3.0 Bollywoodblog but please note the website has provided a link already to the current template as it is stating the 3.0 license for wikipedia to use. If we deleted the exisiting template it would created a red link on there site and may look suspicious and cause them some problems. As for uploading I usually upload into the commons also but I won't be uploading too many to wikipedia anyway. This is for the Indian cinema project to follow up and select the images they need -I am only loosely associated with the group and work on wikipedia. I just thought it was time some images were made more readily avialable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PLese note as it is the template is categorized as Commons 3.0 anyway so it images automatically goes into this category ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK good thinking but can the template be redirected. It just looks a little awkward now that the site have published the news and officially linked it to the template as it is. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC) How about template Template:cc-by-3.0-Bollywood-bg ?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created a formal file for the agreement at Wikipedia:Bollywood blog images. Please feel free to explain a bit more and add whatever image code numbers you feel relevant. I'm taking it easy (freezing myself) for the next week and will be rreducing my edits temporarily as I'm exhausted. I received two barnstars in one day!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically I changed {{Bollywoodblog}} to make it into the {{cc-by-3.0}} template with your additional info. I need to find a way to ensure the template is subst'd instead of used in its original form, I've never done that before. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No I've just switched the template name to Template:cc-by-3.0-Bollywood-bg and directed the old page to the new one. I've switched all the image templates. This will be used from now on ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ernst - I changed the new template to a subst template as well. This is needed so the license doesn't get garbled in Commons moves, or if the license agreement changes in the future, since the license can't be retroactively changed. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Tim, I had a bit of a poke around with {{cc-by-3.0-Bollywood-bg}} because there was a subst error before. Could you have a look and tell me whether it's OK now? I don't know what will/won't stuff up any moves to Commons... :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That should be fine - thanks for fixing it! It was my first time messing with that subst error and it was kicking my butt. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Copied it from somewhere else myself... No worries! Everything is substituted and in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog, and all is as it should be... I think. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou!!

Thanks this means alot to me thanks. I'm exhausted now so I'm gonna take a swim for Bigglesworth out of of my volcano for a few days and cool off in the Japanese lake!!! Its intense stuff obtaining such licenses isn't it -and I strongly appreciate your efforts in this field and your help.

Hey i was wondering could you help me change my personal default setting to alter the main page. I want to use the executive page alternative see User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/monobook.js but it isn't working. Any idea how to make the main page change? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to use this page as my permanent setting for the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_alternative_%28executive%29

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome on the barnstar - you definitely earned it. Yeah, it can be hard work getting good licenses, but worth it. On the main page thing, that's a new one on me - I'd have to research it. Sorry, Ernst...anyway, enjoy your well-earned break! Videmus Omnia Talk 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm very particular about presentation and graphics - I guess I come from a very artistic family where I thrive on imagery -strong colors and boldness - I find it helps me to think better. I keep trying to find ways to alter the graphic of the wiki site. I think we need to boost the size of the wikipedia title on the front page for starters. I'm afraid I'm no expert in computer programming also I can sometimes logically work things out. I've asked a people to try to help me reset it it my browser. I had been using the cologne blue setting for several months to try to alter the appearance of the site. Its probably fine as it is to most people but I am always looking for ways to change it for the better. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've learned how to do it now. I'm very happy with it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim I had a tag put on Image:Batmobile.jpg as being replaceable when being over 40 years old it clearly isn't . Please check to see if my rationale is ok thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copywright is owned by ABC 1966-1968. I would crop it down to a lower reoslution but haven't the ability to ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What even with Batman and Robin in it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah if the actual car can be obtained freely then it can't really apply. But I would have thought it would make sense to have an image with the duo in it. Jumpin piranhas!!!! Holy catfish!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks what about http://www.flickr.com/photos/lautenbach/1393924696/?

Is this compatible? It looks like you only have to attribute it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All done - I was kind of familiar with the licenses on flickr before as I searched for many free images for my WikiProject Cambodia to use. Uploaded to the commons replaced the image and put the current one for speedy. I didn't evne think that it might be in a museum or somehting. Heres something strnage as well - it was only uploaded to flickr two days ago -coincidence or what? This was the best image from the several pages i looked at -we work pretty well together don't we. Thanks again for your guidance ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I mostly have a strong aversion to comic books and cartoon characters - I find some of them a little anorakish - but I love cult series like Batman 60s tv series, and the Rockford Files and the A team and all that. its cool!! . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American films

As you know I am in the middle of drawing up the history of American films by year in its entirety. I'm working on American films of 1934 at present and aimed to start another film to rid of another red link. However I can't seem to get a poster for it and the imdb of course is covered so I can't upload it. Any idea where I can another one? See [3] I can't get the image from the original site. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The only one I could legally use is Image:The Richest Girl in the World.jpg. I guess this should be ok but it is a little small ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a good source, but DCGeist (talk · contribs) has done a lot of work in that area, and has uploaded a lot of movie posters from that era. He's even found that a lot of them are in the public domain. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Its ok thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Batman

They still haven't deleted the copywighted image even though it is tagged ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like C:CSD is backlogged. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it - pictures always seem to take alot of time to delete. Hey thanks for letting me know about User:DCGeist - I've just contacted him. He appears to share my interest in this field and it would be good if he could help. I've jjsut read his RKO pcitures article and it is tops!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FURD followups

Just a question... but is there a reason you are following up some, not all but some, of DarkFalls' removal of the tag for removal of older, larger version(s) of an image after those versions have been removed? - J Greb 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - I thought I got them all, but I only looked at his edits for a certain period of time, maybe he removed the tags in more than one session. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Compare the logs with the history, and it seems like the tags sometimes get removed before the actual deletion is done. This may be an unfortunate side-effect of the way DarkFalls handles revision deletions (though I've only seen him remove the tags after deleting a whole bunch). In other cases, it may be a disagreement over whether the revision in history is actually too large. --Pekaje 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Part of the concern I've got is that I may be putting the wrong substitution template on the images. I've sweeping back through images I've uploaded smaller versions of and in some cases I'm seeing the tag I place being put back, even though there is only 1 image in the on-page history. I've checked a few to make sure there was a deletion and reverted the tag-revert, but seeing it continuing to crop up, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. - J Greb 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I owe you an apology!

This edit summary took me by surprise! For a fraction of a second, just before I clicked on the diff, I was thinking, surely, surely Videmus would not put back a non-free image that I had just removed! I guess I owe you an apology! :-) ElinorD (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would never do that to you - and please don't call me Shirley. ;-) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AI Matrix Sara Notice

Unfortunetly, its not that simple; the guy(s) who own that site have fiddled with the design of the site so as to prevent hot-linking of their material from other sites. The same problem exists for Image: Tom II (Toonami).JPG, and I am not exactly sure how to fix it. Would providing a detailed list of instructions for accsessing the images be ok, or should I try and find an HTTP link to the exact spot? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think giving the closest you can get to a direct link would be OK, so long as any reasonably savvy person could then find the image. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Orgasm Protection

Sorry about that! I was trying the twinkle protection feature but obviously I had bugged up one part of the process and accidentally full protected the article. Automated tools are helpful but as you see getting too used to them can be a curse...that's the last time I protect anything with Twinkle. The old school way works just fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's joke in here somewhere, I just can't quite find it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...best we leave automated tools and protection out of the orgasm discussion, I think. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porn Star

The Porn Star
I, hereby award you this Porn Star for outstanding contributions to Pornography articles on Wikipedia, and to other projects of Wikimedia via Wikimedia Commons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 21:40, 22 September 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
Last Son of Krypton
WCWM
Dyanna Lauren
Adriana Sage
Julie Wagner
Avy Scott
Bridgette Kerkove
Egg magazine
List of Arubans
High Society (magazine)
Roz Weston
HBO channels
Little Black Book
Wicked Pictures
Sybok
John Stagliano
Digital Playground
Ashlyn Gere
You Shook Me All Night Long
Cleanup
Inglorious Bastards
Alternate versions of cartoon characters
Rikdo Koshi
Merge
Commander in Chief (TV series)
Gonzo
Unitard
Add Sources
A1 (band)
Urecco
Expanded Universe
Wikify
The Masters Apprentices
Maury Yeston
G-suit
Expand
Eugene R. Black
Julie Bowen
Canadian Bacon (film)

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 19:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)