Misplaced Pages

Re: Diran Pics (to add to WikiCommons)

Hi Thanks for the message, I didn't know that the upload link given on the help page is different from Wiki Commons. I have read about wiki commons, I'll message MacGyverMagic about it and then mail him/her the pictures. If I understand correctly, that is the only way to add stuff to wiki commons, right? Waqas.usman 06:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. All you need to do is go to Commons and register. Then you can upload images like you do on the English wiki site. RedWolf 00:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Pune

Thank you for your contribution at Pune.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)

I don't recall. Probably just a dab. RedWolf 02:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Misplaced Pages:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada for instructions.--Rmky87 01:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of bio of James Ford, Roshi

Why did you delete the bio for Rev. James Ishmael Ford, Roshi? Ford is a key person not only in the confluence of Buddhism with Unitarian Universalism, but also one of the few Zen Masters in New England.

Probably copyvio but I can't recall. Provide the exact article name. Who are you? RedWolf 02:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Link is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/James_Ishmael_Ford . I am one of his students.

It was a copyright violation. RedWolf 00:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. That text was from one of our websites. You are hereby granted permission to copy that into Misplaced Pages. Let me know what further proof of this permission you would like.

Okay, I wrote something new. --Teishin 15:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging

Just wanted to thank you for your continually dedicated image tagging. Superm401 | Talk 02:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles which lack sources name change

I saw that you proposed to change the name of Articles which lack sources to "Articles that lack sources". Should these also be renamed?

• Articles which may be inaccurate
• Articles which may be unencyclopedic
• Articles which may contain original research

-- Kjkolb 12:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not what I proposed. It is the result of the CFD discussion/vote on the renaming of that category and the name chosen was "Articles lacking sources". I saw the other like named categories but not sure at this point if they should be similarly renamed. RedWolf 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Just to make sure, I was actually asking, not being sarcastic. -- Kjkolb 08:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

{{No source}} tags

Hi. I'm finding a bunch of images that you've tagged {{No source}} that are clearly dated prior to 1923 (well, or not so clearly-- a bunch of bird illustrations just said "old encyclopedia" but I figured out which encyclopedia, and they're all pre-1923). For the record, images published prior to 1923 can be tagged PD-US. And of course, 200-year-old paintings can safely be tagged PD-old.

The ones I'm looking at mostly seem to have been tagged last January, so you may have figured this out already, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. TIA, Mwanner | Talk 23:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi. I think I have an idea of some of the images you are referring to. I wasn't sure what was meant by "old" so I erred on the side of caution. AFAIK, photos taken today of 200 year old paintings don't get PD status as they are owned by the photographer and their copyright starts at the time the photo is taken. RedWolf 02:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a horrifying idea, if true. That would seem to imply that simply scanning a PD image would grant the person who performs the scan a copyright, which seems to me only slightly more ridiculous than the idea that I could copyright an image of someone else's painting by simply photographing it. Any idea where to get a definitive answer? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, this line of reasoning seems to get even worse. If I find an image of a photograph that was originally published before 1923 that has been republished in a book printed last year, it would seem from what you're saying, that I can't scan and use that image without a GFDL or equivalent release from the publisher. If that is the case, I suspect that the vast majority of PD-tagged images on WP are suspect. The only exemptions would be images actually created by the uploader from original PD sources by scanning or photography or taken from those (very rare) sites that specify that the contents are PD or equivalent. It's really ugly, though I have a sinking feeling that you may be right. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • From the Misplaced Pages:Copyrights article: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas". IAcertainlyNAL, but it seems to me a stretch to call the act of photographing a painting an act of creative expression.
  • From Public domain-- "In the past, in some jurisdictions such as the USA, a work would enter the public domain with respect to copyright if it was released without a copyright notice. This is no longer the case. Any work (of certain, enumerated types) receives copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium." It would seem to be important to know when this changed. If a work was released during the period when copyright notice was required, and it did not have such notice, it would seem reasonable to assume that it has remained in the public domain.
  • Ah ha! From the same article: "It is well-settled that work in the public domain keeps that status, even after being embedded in a copyrighted work." (See "Privity problems" section). This would seem to suggest that a photo of a PD image would still be PD.
  • Note, too, that Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Copyright_(images) does not say anything about modern photographs of old images, so either it is deficient, or your reading above is wrong.
• Sorry about spewing all this stuff at you-- you are the editor I see working in this area the most. The subject concerns me pretty deeply-- I work on a lot of history articles, and I have uploaded a lot of images created before 1923 but found on web pages, and I have tagged them all PD on the basis of their publication date alone. If you can't answer these issues, do you know where I should take these concerns? -- TIA, Mwanner | Talk 17:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly no copyright expert and I don't have a simple answer to your concerns. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages:Copyright FAQ (and talk page). If you find a definitive answer, let me know. I think taking a photograph of something, public domain or not, gives the photographer full copyright protection on that photo and they can assign a license as they see fit. RedWolf 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good source. From Misplaced Pages:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works

Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it in a significant way creates a new copyright on the work.

However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new copyright to apply, as the court ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation.

The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement. The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify."

Unless I'm misreading this, that seems to wrap it up. Do you see it any other way? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, what about Image:Mona-lisa-through-glass.jpg which is a photo of the Mona Lisa painting? The photographer claims GFDL. Why would this not be PD or stop someone from claiming PD? Or would the fact that there is a reflection on the glass enclosure is enough for a derivative work? What if it had simply been a photo of the painting without the enclosure? If I (or anyone else) were to go to the Louvre and somehow manage to take a photo of the painting without being in it's enclosure (similar to what the Louvre has done for the source of the photo being used on Misplaced Pages), is that photo PD immediately or only after 70 years? RedWolf 21:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems straightforward to me. In Image:Mona-lisa-through-glass.jpg, the PD image is less than 25% of the area of the image-- the photographer has certainly created a new image that incorporates the PD image, so a new copyright is created. But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify" to create a newly copyrighted work-- the PD status of the original image then applies to the photograph.

Sure, there could be grey areas-- that's what courts are there for. But most of the images we're talking about on Misplaced Pages, say Image:Asher Durand Kindred Spirits.jpg e.g., would be a slavish copy of the original PD work, and thus PD itself.

• Shouldn't this be using the {{PD-Art}} tag and not simply PD? RedWolf 22:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's another kettle of fish. Yes, paintings by Durand should be PD-art, because he died before 1905. But in one of those areas I'm not quite clear on-- suppose he died in 1940, but the painting was published in 1922. I assume PD-US could then be used. Or PD-old-50. If you have any light to shed on why these different tags exist, please point the way...

I just changed the tag on Kindred Spirits, and was amused to see that the expansion of the tag includes the phrase This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). -- TIA, Mwanner | Talk 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Better still, scanned photographs would seem to be the ultimate in slavish copies, so if the original is PD, so will be the scan. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

your bot and removing Category:Ontario academics

was this a speedy delete by your bot? there s NO record of a discussion on the decision to remove this cat on WP:CFD. there s legitimate reasons for having this cat based on the condition of other cats it is a sub-cat of and which are sub-cats of it, in particularly that Category:Canadian academics is nearly completely sub-cated into the various fields of academia and/or professorships according to the feilds they are in. moreover, Category:People from Ontario was sub-cated according to broad occupation. where s the consistency in removing this and not Category:Ontario actors, Category:Ontario artists, etc. -Mayumashu 03:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 7 RedWolf 03:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks

O'Connell Street image status is changed

Thanks :)

Deletion of image in Celes Chère

The image there comes from the same sources as the other Final Fantasy VI characters. Even if not, anyone can make an exact copy of the same image by screen capturing the actual game, either on emulator or legally with a SNES. Also, the in-game icon is actually a zoomed-in and color-reduced version of Yoshitaka Amano's drawing on the left. -- Myria 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't you put this info on the image description page? This is exactly why images like this get deleted because of the total lack of information on their source and copyright status. Don't assume that people validating image source/copyright info know anything about the subject matter. RedWolf 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't put the picture there. I have no idea what the exact source of the image is. It could have come from either Square's web site or from an emulator. -- Myria 04:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image:MountLogan.jpg

Hi! I hope you're well, and thanks for your note. Sorry about not including source information for this pic: I did not take it and obtained it (legitimately, methinks) off of a mountain website. I did so because it seemed apt for the geography section in the Canada article (being its highest mountain) and because the prior pic was both unlicensed and ... rather plain (of Arctic rocks).

As well, I upload some images and create others (past and prior), and have sometimes neglected including the license blurb. Forgive me! In the next week, I have every intention of revisiting all images I've uploaded/created and appending them with proper summaries/licenses. I hope this is OK. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; forgive my delay in addressing this. Hmmm. I've uploaded another picture in its place (with credit), found by doing a Google search, and hope that the license and description for it are sufficient. If not, the only other option is to include yet another image found on a Canadian government website of lower quality. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 07:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image Uploads

Greetings, Since I am new to editing at Misplaced Pages I hope I am doing this right. I appologize for how I originally inserted the images, I now now how to do it correctly and will not overight copyrighted images again. I recieved your message and was curious what I didn't do. After the first few images I started giving the credit to the fan sites where I go the images from right away. Does that not comply with the rules here? I am not trying to be a smart alec I just want to add to this amazing site and just want to make sure I"m not breaking any rules. -- Dstorres

Mt. Harvard

Hey, I saw you that you contributed to the Mt. Harvard page. I just visited it, and at some point someone messed with the coordinates link, and I can't figure out how to change it, and I don't know where to report it on the vandalism page. Do you know how to fix it?

• Looks fine to me. Someone just recently changed it. Remember to sign your posts. RedWolf 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Unfair games

Hi, I noticed you closed the cfd on this category (Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Unfair_games) in February as "Consensus was to delete". Is there some reason why it hasn't been deleted? —Blotwell 03:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi. Can't recall exactly why it wasn't deleted -- I probably just forgot to actually delete it after I had logged it. RedWolf 05:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hi Redwolf, I'm still in the process of contacting the owners to ask if they'll release them under a free licence. It's quite a big job to track them down. However, the ones listed are all being properly used as fair use; and some are in fact public domain. They shouldn't really have been listed in the first place. SlimVirgin 22:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have cleared the images from WP:CP. Discussion has been placed on the relevant talk pages for the images. Rationale needs to provided for fair use images where it has not yet been provided or they may face future CP claims. If they get unlinked from their current articles, they might get deleted on site as unused fair use. RedWolf 04:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of Mount Garibaldi entry

I already put this on Garibaldi's "talk" page, but this a second advisory that the that was done on my changes to Garibaldi have restated the original error I sought to correct. To whit: Mount Garibaldi is NOT part of the Cascade Range. It is part of the Cascade Volcanoes GROUP but it is NOT, repeat NOT, part of the Cascade Range; it is a part of the Coast Mountains, which contrary to previous errors on the Cascade Range page are NOT part of the Cascade Range. Skookum1 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I suggested this, but is there a way to revert ALL edits by a user and/or all edits from time "A" to time "B"?

I am reverting 71.111.3.178 (talk · contribs) one at a time.

WikiDon 04:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Umm, what??? RedWolf 04:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Arthur lichte

The article about Arthur Lichte was from a US Air Force Site and was public domain as a work of the US federal goverment. It was reproduced on the site of the air and space convention but was originally from the USAF site and is a work of the federal goverment. Please undelete it or give me the OK to reconstruct it.

The talk page should have provided the exact URL so it can be verified. Place your request on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you want it to be undeleted. RedWolf 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Walter Hampson

I must admit to being somewhat annoyed at your deletion of a article I placed about My Great great Uncle Walter Hampson. Author and dialect poet 1864-1932. The reason you gave of infringing copyright is incorrect. As I also wrote and created the web site http://hometown.aol.co.uk/honomeround/walterhampson.html I think I can give myself permission to copy my own words? Is it possible for you to reinstate this article without me having to rewrite it?

• Who are you? Unless a website explicitly states that the text on the site is in the public domain or is GFDL compatible, putting the text verbatim from such a website into a Misplaced Pages article is a copyright violation. A copyvio notice was on the article for at least 7 days but no one offered to rewrite nor was there a claim of permission on the talk page. Misplaced Pages has no idea that you were the one who originally wrote the text and even then, without an explicit granting of public domain or GFDL, any article containing such text will be deleted. RedWolf 01:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

13th Nov. I am not the most competent HTML writer. So I do not want to mess with my original site that the article was copied from. And I don't know what GFDL means. So if I rewrite the article in a different form, will that be allowed?

• GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License. Essentially, anything released under GFDL can be used and modified by others as long as they follow the GFDL rules. You are more than welcome to rewrite the article. Just keep in mind that whatever you post can be modified and reused as other contributers or users see fit (as long as it's in line with GFDL). If you subsequently post your rewrite on your web site, you will have to put a notice on your website that the rewrite comes from Misplaced Pages. Finally, please end your comments with four tildes so your id and date can be recorded. RedWolf 02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Villy on Veals!

Please block this user? User:Villy on Veals!. I told another guy to, but guess he's not online. BDArambson or something like that. Check my history. --216.191.200.1 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion: "Christina Yu"

You deleted the article "Christina Yu" on the 10th of November. May I ask what exactly was assumed to be a potential IP liability for Misplaced Pages here? Unfortunately I seem to have missed the discussion about this article, as I hadn't logged in to wikipedia for 3 weeks. There shouldn't be any intellectual property problems with this article. I was the original author of the article. Although I had borrowed some snippets from other sources, I had sought explicit permission from the involved intellectual property owner to publish the article as it was on Wikipeda under GNU Free Documentation License. I thought I had stated this clearly on the deleted articles' talk page; maybe I didn't though (I wouldn't be able see it now anymore anyway). I have previously pointed out intellectual property right infringements on wikipedia - and I would not bother to write an article containing IP infringements. At least, this is what I think - let me know if I am wrong. Is it possible to undelete this article? Thanks in advance for your advice. ReidarM 15:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your comments on the talk page indicated that the information had been "cleared" but this was not convincing to at least two other editors, nor to myself. An email originating from the IP owner is usually the best way to back up permission claims. You can either rewrite the article or make a request on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. RedWolf 16:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the quick answer! Seems like I am presumed guilty and would have to prove that I am innocent (wouldn't it be nice if people could trust each other...) - Anyway, as soon as I've got time I'll list the article for undeletion along with the email from the IP owner to "back up my claim" ;-) (Interesting to note that an email would suffice though. If I provide the email, this is essentially nothing more than another claim. After all, "forging" an email including headers wouldn't take more time than writing this sentence). ReidarM 23:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:CP process

"… please ensure that you blank the articles as per the instructions." I am sorry, I obviously did not read the instructions carefully; they state clearly that in such cases I should blank the article. Will try harder in the future :-). -- IslandGyrl 23:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

It doesn't really matter, but I tend to use American English when dealing with articles on American topics and British English elsewhere...I see that you altered the spelling for meters here but I won't revert it over a petty issue but just wanted to let you know how I approach the issue involving spelling issues.--MONGO 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, American's just don't know how to spell! :) Seriously though, perhaps we should simply agree to use "m" for topics about the United States. RedWolf 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Mtnbox templates

Feel free to revert them -- if tidy is still turned off on the servers, the reverted version will still be broken. If tidy is running again, they will work.

The reason I made the change is that Wikimedia devs had to turn off HTML tidy on all the servers. This had consequences for templates with unmatched tags. In the case of the mountain box templates, what happened is the pages were served with the closing table tag at the end of the first template. The subsequent templates were displayed on the page as raw HTML (that is, all with tag delimiters all escaped to > and < in the source, so the HTML code was what appeared when the page was rendered. So each mountain page displayed 10 to 30 lines of HTML source at the top, and only the start template of each set was displayed as a table.

I think tidy may have been re-enabled now, but as of yesterday, the developers said it was off indefinitely and we should take steps necessary to run without it.

Like I said, feel free to revert it. --Tabor 14:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I asked the developers how, ideally, this problem should be avoided in the first place. They told me the templates should use optional parameters instead of splitting into multiple parts with opening and closing tags in separate templates. --Tabor 14:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

When did optional parameters get implemented? I had requested this quite a while back as the better solution but the powers that be decided they didn't want to make templates feel more like "programming". Where are these new features documented? RedWolf 00:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the photo was fixed without reverting. I had missed a newline. --Tabor 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

{{if}}

The problem is the <tr><td> stuff in the {{if}}. You could either do like I fixed it, which leaves some extra space if it's not there (though that could be cut down by removing cellspacing/padding), or use nested templates like {{infobox rail}}. --SPUI (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't want a new table row if the parameter is not provided or empty so the workaround you provided doesn't work the way I would like. Thanks for the help though. Don't want to change the cellpadding/cellspacing as that wouldn't make the overall table look "right". Don't really want to do the "call template" approach but may have to. Really, the developers should provide a proper if-else conditional for templates. Sigh. RedWolf 07:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

question

Can you briefly explain why the article "Japanese Journal of Religious Studies" was deleted on 4 November 2005, please? Thank you very much.

• Copyright violation. Please sign your posts (apparently by an anon IP). RedWolf 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have another question, but maybe we can continue this exchange on my discussion page so I don't clog up yours. If you have time, I would appreciate further discussion about this issue. Thank you very much! Jb05-crd 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hello again. Thank you for your explanation. I left a response on my discussion page. Thank you. Jb05-crd 20:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your help, explanations, and suggestions. Jb05-crd 04:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Military images

Per our discussion some time ago regarding a user claiming copyright on several military badges and medals, I believe the user returned under the anon ip of 165.189.41.11 and proceeded to add copyright tags to every one of the images and the articles in which they appeared. I reverted all of this and am prepared to state exactly where each and every image came from. Also, the root of this is that no one private citizen can claim a copyright on a United States badge or medal. It would be like drawing a picture of a Colonel's eagle and then stating that you hold the copyright on the insignia. Anyway, I did investgiate this and the images do match the website that the original user stated. The user pretty much has a website full of insignia, medals, and badges pictures which also appear in several U.S. publications through such organizations as Randolph Air Force Base and the Institute of Heraldry (to name but two). This situation will probably not go away, as the user in question is determined to state copyright ownership of these images. Just wanted to let you know where this stood. Thanks for your support. -Husnock 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Status - OpenFacts

I noticed you recently comment on the OpenFact's Misplaced Pages Status page. I would like to solicit comments on WikiStatus/CoLocus (still don't know what to name it), an alternative to the OpenFacts page. I think it is a lot easier to use (not surprisingly), but I'd like input. Thanks. — Ambush Commander 03:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Rockies

I think that many of the Canadian Rockies-related articles severely lack in quality and substance. Categorizing helps inventory what's there, and can be further subcategorized into mountains, lakes, or whatever. Or, sort the mountains by park. Stub-sorting can be done, prioritize, and I can help out with improving the articles, create maps, add/organize photos, etc. Right now, there is nothing that groups these articles together. --Kmf164 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave the mountain articles, as is, and work on other park-related articles. The mountain articles look good and consistent, with the templates. However, the main park articles (e.g. Jasper National Park) need more about their history, geography, ecology, tourist info, etc, as has been done for US parks like Glacier National Park (US), and Yellowstone National Park. I think maps would also be useful — something I can help with. --Kmf164 08:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY röck 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration re-opened

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been reopened. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why did you inform me of this? I have not been involved in the case. RedWolf 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

removal of Mindvox image

Hi -- you deleted the Mindvox image. It was a logo, and thus fair use. I'm not sure what the stated cr status was, but you could have done a little study first? I'm not the one who uploaded it. Yours, Sdedeo 05:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is the uploader's responsibility to properly identify fair use images. This was not done. RedWolf 06:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You should strive to be helpful, and not adversarial, in everything you do on wikipedia. Sdedeo 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

uploader notification

G'day there. I've run into a few admins who believe that uploaders are notified before before images are marked {{nosource}} or CSD, and i've been doing that but it takes a great deal of time and messages i do leave are usually ignored anyway. I've noticed you don't do it, and I'm just wondering if thats something I could get away with as well... Cheers Agnte 09:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi. I believe it's a waste of time for the most part to notify uploaders (they tend to get ignored anyways as you have experienced). The upload page has clear instructions that images will be deleted if source and license information is not provided. The CSD criteria clearly states the images w/o source and/or copyright information can be deleted 7 days after upload. There is no strict requirement to notify uploaders. Some feel that uploaders should be notified but I'm not of that belief. However, if I see the "uploader notified" message on an image page, I will honour the additional 7 days. The decision is yours on whether to continue notifying uploaders. However, if I place images on IFD or PUI, then I will notify uploaders as per policy. RedWolf 16:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, another question then, is {{CommunityUseOnly}} an appropriate tag for the images linked in User:Scientz's page? My understanding is that images under this tag dont need a source. Agnte 17:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I was unaware of that tag until you pointed it out. There is no info on the template's talk page but I think this template violates GFDL. All images uploaded to Misplaced Pages must be licensed under GFDL or a free license. With these licenes, there are no usage restrictions as far as what type of page in Misplaced Pages they can be used on. So technically, the template is wrong in trying to enforce such usage restrictions IMHO. RedWolf 17:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I found the template here. I've been working out of the {{nosource}} area, sourcing images or CSD'ing them. I believe that there is some ambiguity as to what constitutes image source - it's not really defined anywhere and editors put items in CAT:NS for conflicting reasons. I've posed the question here and I'd appreciate your .02 :). Also, my understanding is that {{fairusein}} images can uploaded to wikipedia - it seems to be allowed on Special:Upload and in WP:FU. Agnte 18:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi Redwolf. Just a question. Where can I find a list of all articles that are being considered for speedy deletion? Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

no source

I refer to this - you listed my image as no source, when my source was clearly stated - GFDL, user-created. In fact, it should be obvious that all the images are either created by me, or from helpful volunteers who were helping me create these myriad of images, that require precise positioning in order for the images to be symmetric. It should be obvious from the simplicity of the images that what the source was, but it is also not something easily recreated, as the symmetry has to be precise. I am very infuriated over this. Why did you list as no source? Why didn't you contact me, as per procedure? It's been three months now and I didn't know a single thing about it, an integral part of the system. Now a piece of my hard work has been deleted, thanks to you. Please undelete it. Sorry for the tone, but I'm quite upset that an image I uploaded was deleted without me being notified, and that it was deleted in the first place when it was very obvious where the source was from. I had painstakingly listed all the similar images, if you didn't see, listed how it was used, and you would think I had got off some copyrighted website? -- Natalinasmpf 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I looked at the image history and there was no info provided on the upload comment nor the description page before I added the no source tag. The admin who deleted it also referred to a comment on a user page. Each image is checked on its individual information. There is no formal requirement of notifying uploaders when no source or no license is added to the page. The upload page is clear that it is the uploader's responsibility to provide proper source and licensing information on each image they upload, otherwise it is subject to deletion. Images cannot be undeleted. You might be able to find it on a wikipedia mirror by using the google image search. RedWolf 19:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The comment on the user page refers to a discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, and had little relevance, other than to delete images without sources. What do you mean there was no info on the image description? There was an entire storehouse of information (albeit on every image) on that image comment. There was also a Template:GFDL on it. It was obviously user-created by me, why didn't you check the context beforehand? This is a severe disappointment for me, there is an entire project at Template:Game of Go position... -- Natalinasmpf 19:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It was not obvious to me it was user created as there was no info on the description page. The page history shows you uploaded it on 18:01, May 9, 2005 but no comment was provided when uploaded. The next revision was my addition of the "no source" template. The image description page history does not reflect your comments. RedWolf 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It said "GFDL" on it. It was also obvious, given that I could create the image in something like paint, it was not a photograph. All the images uploaded in this manner transcluded Template:Weiqi-image, which clearly gives its circumstances. Wouldn't it be more polite to contact me? Furthermore, all the language used in the image description (provided by the template) clearly showed it was user-created, since the images were named and created to be used for the template. That is clearly evident that it was user-created. You don't just download images off the web to be used for some random template that has been constructed with painstaking precision. It's funny how you didn't delete the 200 other images. -- Natalinasmpf 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, what other images of mine did you delete I do not know of? I skipped the deletion review process and uploaded the same thing anyway, well, because I honestly don't think there's any debate about its source. Can't people who go around deleting stuff be more careful in the future? -- Natalinasmpf 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

image taken by friend

Hi, I'd like to re-aupload the image I've put on the Blind Myself entry (and removed by you), but don't know what form I should provide the authors statement about the copyright. I guess it's not enough if I say, that "she told me that ...." thnx Gergely Vass

• Whoever you are (please sign your posts). Feel free to re-upload it but make sure you provide source information on the upload page. Failure to do so will likely mean it gets deleted again. RedWolf 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, sign added. But I still don't know in what form should I provide the statement from the author indicating that she is releasing all rights. (I also uploaded a logo to Blind Myself, could you check it wheter it is good to stay?) thnx Gergely Vass

Deletion of "El Gordo's Revenge"

greetings. i noticed you were the final voice to delete the entry "El Gordo's Revenge" - reference info found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/El_Gordo%27s_Revenge

user JJay flagged the article as a copyright violation of this page: http://www.stlscene.com/band-index.asp?BandID=6175

it's good to know you all know how to use google, but you are all wrong.

the stlscene article is the copyright violation of El Gordo's Revenge's myspace.com bio found here: http://www.myspace.com/elgordosrevenge

the myspace.com account is managed by the retired band members, you should contact them to verify their authorship of the article, then re-post it as it does NOT violate copyright guidelines, and El Gordo's Revenge are a quintessential component of the history of punk rock music in St. Louis Missouri.

regards, nick normal

• Regardless of the true source, the bottom line is that it was a copyvio. No permission was provided to post the text verbatim under GFDL. All text/images on websites are copyrighted by default unless explicit licensing terms are otherwise provided on said web site. More than a week was provided for the real authors to come forward. If the band wishes to create an article on Misplaced Pages, they are free to do so. Just that if they copy it straight from their website, they should inform Misplaced Pages that they are releasing the text under GFDL. RedWolf 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

deleting dymond

Why did you delete the entry on Alfred Hutchinson Dymond? Eric Dymond

• Without the exact link, I can't tell you for sure but I suspect it was a copyvio. RedWolf 04:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My photos

You put tags on two of my pictures, saying that there was no source for either of them. I would have appreciated if you had taken the trouble to bring this fact to my attention at the same time that you tagged them, so that I could have dealt with the situation, rather than your leaving me in ignorance of what you had done, which I consider to be uncivil on your part. If you had taken the time to inform me that the photos contained no sourcce, and were in danger of being deleted, then I would have considered that more courteous. The leaving off of the copyright information from the pages was an accidental oversight, and could have been fixed easily, had you chosen to notify me personally. Figaro 05:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Information on providing source information is strongly hilighted on the upload page. The responsibility is yours not mine. I sometimes tag hundreds of images in a day, notifying most uploaders is a waste of time. RedWolf 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:MustafaKemalABC.jpg

I've been looking on Google and I've found two websites with that picture (and oddly, both had the same file name, but wasn't the same as the one above) here and here. No idea which site the uploader of the image got it from. Also, I've tagged the image with the PD tag. I'd imagine the fellow who took that picture is dead, but I'm not sure if I should slap on the PD-old-50 or 70 tag. Thoughts?--Kross | Talk 09:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• PD old 50 is probably what I would choose unless more info on the photo date can be found. RedWolf 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it would have been taken sometime on or before 1938, the year Ataturk died.--Kross | Talk 05:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yea, since 70 could still be possible, that's why I suggested 50 as that would be safest w/o further info. RedWolf 08:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars images

Why have you deleted ceratin images from Star Wars articles, namely Rom Mohc and Admiral Harkov? This was an unnecessary act of viciousness and quite frankly I think it ought to be reported as vandalism. Thankyou--Billy Goat 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• In accordance with CSD policy, images w/o source and licensing information can be deleted. RedWolf 06:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

need some image protection

Image:Bill Gates1.jpg keeps getting vandalized by someone using sockpuppets.--Kross | Talk 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

article?

is this an article of a famous person http://en.wikipedia.org/Kenan_Tarabishy ? HoneyBee 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirects left over

When you deleted EUMA, the redirect Euma was still left over. Also, AIBD was left over from Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

George Reeves Project

Hi there, get in touch to georgereevesproject@yahoo.com to answer your questions and I am new here, so I dont know if I am doing this right, this is the only way to send you this message...

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! RedWolf!! -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 10:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

William Harrah photo

This photo was a publicity photo taken in the 60s at an event by the Phi Delta Theta fraternity. It was scanned by me and thus does not appear anywhere else on the internet. So I don't exactly know how to tag it. --Dysepsion 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since you only scanned it, you are not the copyright owner. Unless you know who took the picture so they can be contacted, the image will have to be deleted. RedWolf 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the people who took the pics are probably dead, you can contact the staff at www.phideltatheta.org. I do have authority to represent their organization since I did work on their website. But since this entire subject is small, go ahead and delete it. --Dysepsion 20:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • On the image description page, please provide any additional info on the photograph, such as probable date. This may be enough to declare it as PD w/o the image having to be deleted. RedWolf 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab "German"

diff on "Arnold Böcklin": Swiss-German shouldn't link to "Germany", possibly to "German language" or "Swiss German", etc. -- User:Docu

image tag question

Okay, I want to upload a logo from a website. I have permission from the website's admin to upload it. My question is, what image copyright tag would I use?--Kross 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the specifics of the permission. Are they releasing it under GFDL? Or just granting permission just for Misplaced Pages (in which case, possibly only fair use may be applicable)? RedWolf 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. He just said it could be used. I guess it would fall under fair use.--Kross 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Help with Image on N'Bushe Wright page

I found an image from yahoo movies. You help me before with Stephen Dorff page. I would like the same help in licensing N'Bushe Wright's image. Her page was considered to be a stub, so I did the best I could to change it. Please help. I would appreciate your help again. Thanks--Angel21 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Angel21

quick page move request

Could you move Anti-Submarine Warfare to Anti-submarine warfare? I don't want to go through the Request Move system, since its just a simple renaming.--Kross 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Peacockthrone small.jpg

You had written:

Thanks for uploading Image:Peacockthrone small.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWolf (talk • contribs)

I must mention that this image

• is a modern painting. It is not historical.
• the throne is not the peacock-throne (takht-e-taus) of Shah Jahan. Historical paintings of takht-e-taus with Shaha Jahan exist.
• Person sitting on it does not resemble Shah Jahan.

I suggest that this image be deleted.

For the real peacock throne See: http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearch?id=11092&&idx=1&startid=31593

--Malaiya 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Vfd: Category:Zoroastrian gods

Please review the Zoroastrian gods Vfd discussion. Thx - Fullstop 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

An image you uploaded, Image:Alpamayo.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture! Congratulations, and thank you for uploading it. Raven4x4x 07:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Western Music

Hi there - just wanted to quiz you on an edit you made in January 2004: In Western Music you insterted the following statement: "Western music developed out of the creatively fertile framework of Western Philosophy developed in ancient Greece" ... and went on to explain about Pythagoras tinkering around with scales etc. While I don't doubt anything you say about what Pythagoras did - and suppose that might have had an influence on the academic/technical understanding of music, is it really true to say that Western Music, in its entirely, developed out of this? It seems highly implausible - wouldn't it have as much to do with the folk musical traditions of the celts, huns, gauls, norse, moors etc as well as the Greeks? I suspect to come up with his theory Pythagoras would have to have been analysing musical forms that already existed, wouldn't he?

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, and I really don't know the answer - but wanted to see what you thought.

cheers ElectricRay 23:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)