User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 8

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Bell 222A

Alan, I've been doing some research for improving the Airwolf (helicopter), and have a question for you. I've seen several unofficial sites state Airwolf was a Bell 222A, while other reports (what I've used in the article) state it's a plain 222. All published sources that I have for the 222 family usually list the models ans 222, 222B, and 222UT, but no 222A (that's what's in the Bell 222 article). I have seen 222A listed on other aircraft sites, and I even found a 222A listed on Ebay]. Is 222A just an unofficial way of showing that it's a pre-222B model? Thanks. - BillCJ 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'll look in my manuals in the morning to confirm, but I remember that being said at 222/230 school. An interesting bit of trivia, that I've had the unfortunate priviledge of living through the past through days: When the 222's blades are tied down in the manner specified by Bell, in the right wind conditions, the blades can flex so much that the bottom of the blade will actually contact the upper wire strike cutter, resulting in a nice, deep hole in the blade. 63kt gusts at Mojave did that to our spare ship Monday night, so I've been having blade replacement fun! We do track and balance in the morning.... AKRadecki 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the balancing. - BillCJ 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll need it. The blade we put on was quite a bit heavier than the other...took almost 30 grams of BBs in the blade tip to get the thing to static balance...tomorrow should be an adventure! AKRadecki 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill, track and balance actually went really well today. Got it nailed in about 5 flights. Anyway, I also looked up the model info, my source here is the official Bell 222/230 field maintenance training manual. In it, the plain 222 is used interchangebly with the 222A. The TCDS doesn't make any mention of an A model, so it seems that the A is an unofficial, possibly marketing term, probably initiated after the B model came on the scene. AKRadecki 00:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting turn of events at Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

Interesting turn of events here. I withdrew my deletion nom and moved the fixed up version by Piotr to the main space. Now, Davegz is calling it vandalism and proposed it for deletion via prod. Wonder if he will afd it next? That would be an interesting turn of events none the less. I really do like the fixed up version alot! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages needing translation into English

Just wanted to give you a heads up for your contributions on the pertaining talk-page and to thank you for the template you provided...and wanted to point out these templates here (as I'm not sure if you know about them), as they can be very useful if you know the language of the articles. I'm not as active as I was before, but just let me know if you need some help. Cheers. Lectonar 22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of them, but they might be useful. I've got some other ideas I'll be proposing over on the talk page. AKRadecki 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback about the translation page. Somehow I missed it. I'll change my comments to "Should be translated." Cheers. Cbdorsett 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that four new additions to the page (yesterday and today) have already become red-lined. Can you check into what was deleted? I thought the pages were supposed to be up for 14 days, or until reviewed. Thanks. Cbdorsett 11:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Museum of Flight

Alan, some deleted Image:Museum of Flight, Seattle.jpg, as "Replaceable fair use". Now all we have on the Museum of Flight is one pic of the "City of Everett". Can you look into this, and see if there is anything that can be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The image had originally been released by its creator into the Public Domain, but somehow the tag got changed by an IP editor to promotional, so a bot tagged it for deletion. I've restored it. AKRadecki 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew knowing an new admin would come in handy ;) - BillCJ 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These tools are definitely cool! AKRadecki 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OOPs! I fogot to revet it back to the pic! THanks for catching that. I had the page on the diff when you restroed the pic, so didn't realize I still need to revert. - BillCJ 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Embraer Lineage

Alan, could you look at Embraer Lineage, and give me your opinion on the title? From the Embraer website, it looks like it's called the "Lineage 1000", not just plain "Lineage". - BillCJ 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Muchas gracias! I just finished adding the aircontent template to the Embraer E-Jets, and noticed the links were to Embraer Lineage 1000, not Embraer Lineage. Saved me the trouble of fixing the redirects! - BillCJ 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Embraer Lineage, it looks like I wasn't the first to try, but it was done improperly, and thus reverted. AKRadecki 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that too. - BillCJ 02:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hello, Alan. Thank you very much for your kind support in my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I hope to live up to your expectations. My congratulations on your not-so-recent Rfa, and your delightful new signature, too. See you! PeaceNT 04:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we will cross paths soon :) Take care, PeaceNT 16:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello my friend, the article you aked me to translate refers to a tiny tiny village in central Greece. I m sorry but I don't feel like translating it. I don't know wether it deserves its place in the (current sized) wikipedia either.Check fr example the size of the article about Karpenisi which is the capital of the whole prefecture the village belongs to. Maybe it should be transferred to the greek wikipedia. Thank you,

• user:Spyros Pantenas

No problem my dear friend, feel free to contact me anytime. Yours truly, user:Spyros Pantenas

William D. Cohan

Notability assertions would definitely preclude an A7 (bio) speedy, but other categories can still apply. If the article is spam, then a {{db-spam}} tag would be perfectly justified, no matter the subject's notability. (Personally I didn't think the article was spammy enough to speedy, but that's just me.) DarkAudit 08:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denialism

Thank you for undeleting User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet occupation denialism. I have now reviewed it and copied everything that might be useful for the new article over into User talk:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes for further reference. The original talk page you undeleted may now be safely deleted. Digwuren 09:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV closures

Instructions are on page 3 of the cabal handbook - you should get one in the mail shortly! Do you mean these? Hope that helps... I think that's what you're talking about? Cheers, Riana ⁂ 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not senile at all :) I took about 4 months to realise something really basic, like how to use diffs properly, or something like that, so I'm the last person who'll have a laugh at anyone else - and the best person to ask "stupid" questions ;) Cheers, Riana ⁂ 07:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Belfast

Northern Ireland was never part of Ireland from the 1600s as when the United Kingdom was beening formed the entire Island of Ireland was involved, the ROI then left the Union during Queen Victorias rain. Even if you do what to put Ireland you would be wrong as you can look at it two ways either Belfast is in the UK ir Belfast is in Ulster. Changing it to Ireland means that you are not brillant it shows that you dont know what you are editing and it makes wikipedia wrong. Craig7006

Sorry, but this has been debated for a long time, please just leave it as it is, or take it to the article's talk page. Besides, I never claimed to be brilliant. AKRadecki 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or my personal analysis into an article, as I did to RMS Titanic as Belfast and Northern Ireland was never part of Ireland then other relation that northern Ireland has to Ireland is the border and that is it, you are the one breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig7006 (talk • contribs)

The point is that the current format is established by consensus and discussion. The problem here is that you are insisting on your version of things, rather than proposing it to the community and discussing it there first. AKRadecki 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now placed it into the Discussion and I am correct as northern Ireland never left the Union. The same can be said about the USA as it was not formed until 200years ago (approx). Should we change any artile about the USA history before 200 years ago to its name back then, this would be wrong and upset most USA editors. Craig7006 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Superman

Apparently Superman: The Man of Steel (film) wasn't protected, and was recreated just a couple of hours after you deleted it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan, I just read the deleted version, and it's a good thing it's not live. I especially noted this line:

(Clark Kent, Superman's alter ego, did have sexual intercourse with Lois and the one-night stand might have caused Lois to be pregnant with Jason in her womb prior to her giving birth to him).

• Um, isn't that the way pregnancy and bith usually happen?? LOL, makes you wonder if the editor is not from some otner planet himself! - BillCJ 01:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dang...I thought I'd fully protected...oh, well, rookie mistake. AKRadecki 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

You might want to check the last few edits out...someone is trying to POV push the Ireland issue again. I've used up my 3 reverts, have given the editor the last warning. I have no problem blocking him if he does it again, but as it's not clear vandalism, I won't be able to revert again. AKRadecki 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right, it is far from being vandalism, more a PoV we (and most people) disagree with. I've sent the new user a message and we can take it from there. Thanks for the heads-up; I hope you scrutinised my recent copyedit by the way, I expected more resistance to my introduction of the modern "sulfur" replacing the olden-days "sulphur". I still believe the former is more encyclopedic (i.e. modern scientific usage of the name of an element) but there might be other opinions? --Guinnog 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did look over the copyedit, and it all looked good. I think sometimes these frequently-edited articles need that kind of polishing, as they can get a kind of choppy feel otherwise. Definitely agree on sulfur. Thanks for the help! AKRadecki 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Coaching kudos

Erica, a while ago, I had requested some pre-admin coaching, and you put me with User:Lar and User:Guinnog. I just wanted to drop a quick line to you and thank you for doing that...they were fantastic coaches, did a great job in getting me to think about things...in summary, perfect examples of what coaches should be. My RfA passed well, in big part I believe because of the work they put into me. So, a big thanks to you for all the hard work you put into making the program work. AKRadecki 22:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It was really nice to get this message, thank you. =) I'm very glad admin coaching worked so well for you. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bell 222 rewrite

Alan, when you get a chance, could you look at User:BillCJ/Sandbox 7? I'm trying to rewrite the article to exculde the 430, which I'm working on at User:BillCJ/Sandbox 8. There are several areas that don't have citation, and I assume they are from the Bell 222/230 Field Maintenance Training Manual and Bell 222U Rotorcraft Flight Manual. I think you added these sources last year, so if you can recognize which source they are from and cite them, I would appreciate it. I'm just trying to make sure everything is cited before going live with it. That and the rewrite of my text dumb is about all that's left on this one. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. I found this article] linked form the Norweigian Wiki's 222 page. It's by a German EMS magazine, but in English (seems translated from German). You might find it interesting! - BillCJ 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vincent Massey Public School (Lively) Closed 1983

I see you have redirected this to George Vanier Secondary School, are you sure this this correct? The secondary school has no mention of a merger in its history, the Vincent Massey article says the other school was the George Vanier Public School and a quick Google check shows that Canadian schools named after George Vanier are rather common. The Wikipedia article on Vanier also mentions a Massey-Vanier High School which could be a potential as well.

As the article is virtually empty and, because of that, the correct destination of any redirect is not obvious I feel it should stay as a deletion candidate. Nuttah68 07:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for pointing this our. AKRadecki 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Patrick De Mayer

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patrick De Meyer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Curious Gregor^TALK 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Commented there, with endorsing delete, and responding to comments brought up in AfD. AKRadecki 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

role of admins in {{afd}}?

I see you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani

I see you also weighed in and expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted.

I am not a regular visitor to the {{afd}} fora. Sometimes administrators who participate there surprise me. Sometimes they surprise me with actions that seem out of synch with my understanding of policy. And, sometimes, when I ask them about it, they are able to educate me, and explain which policy or procedure they are acting under. Other times they acknowledge they made a lapse.

Aren't administrators supposed to try to be neutral, when they close discussions? Well, it seems to me that this should extend to relisting as well. Should you really both relist the {{afd}} and weigh in with your opinion?

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He did not close it, however made an appropriate choice (in my humble opinion) to relist it to generate more discussion. While there is not generally a lack of admins who will eventually close an afd, there is often a lack of participation in afd. I personally feel it appropriate to try and generate more involvement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to Chris' comments, let me add that I believe it is inappropriate for an admin to close an AfD that they participated in, so I obviously won't be closing this one. A relist, however, is only a continuation of the discussion, and admins are allowed to - and encouraged to - participate in discussions, and whenever I do, I try to bring a perspective of policy and guidelines to bear directly on the subject. In this particular case, I have no opinion about the subject itself, but my view is expressed as merely looking at how policy/guidelines apply to this situation (in this case, lack of references). Hope this helps. AKRadecki 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki, just FYI Geo asked for my comments on this which you'll find here. As it appears not to have been formally closed previously I think removal, or striking , of the "Relisting" wording might be appropriate in this case. I'll leave that to your discretion. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My, how things change when you're not looking, or on a long break :)

I now see that you used the {{Relist}} template for this and, as you say, followed the instructions at WP:DELPRO correctly. I was never intending to suggest that you did anything wrong or acted with malice. The problem I see is that this is not a relisting, merely a continuation of an existing discussion (having never been formally closed). In that sense, the wording at WP:DELPRO is misleading at best - something I'll look into shortly and add some more clarification, or add {{AfD_Extend}} to the mix.

My gut feeling on this is that a removal of the "Relist" wording is appropriate, and leave it to run it's course to closure is all that is required. As before, I'll leave this to your discretion. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as AK's coach prior to his adminship I was asked to comment. I see nothing at all wrong with the use of the relist template. It is the appropriate template to use when in an admin's judgement, extending the discussion would help generate a clearer consensus, which given the relative paucity of comments prior to the relist, seems prudent in this case. The relist is perhaps not well named but it is NOT used after a formal close, but rather, used instead of it. That AK also gave his opinion on the article has perhaps the merest tinge of incorrectness but most people would have no issue with it. I certainly do not. AK probably should not be the closing admin though. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Akradecki, just to keep you in the loop, I commented to Lar here. Sincere apologies if this is causing stress for you, but this seems to be a case of poorly worded guidelines. As I said before there is absolutely no question of any impropriety on your behalf. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cactus and Lar...no stress at all, and I didn't mean to imply anything to you, Cactus, but asking Lar. I'm still really new at this, recognize I'm really new, and just want to do things right, and a double check never hurts! AKRadecki 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, glad you're not stressed. And double checking with others is absolutely fine, particularly if they were your Admin coach!!! I've worked with Lar quite a bit in the past and just wanted to set the record straight with him that I wasn't questioning your actions. No sinister implications by you were inferred on my part whatsoever, so no worries there. The important thing to remember is that we're all new at this in a sense. Guidelines, policies, templates and the like are being tweaked, reworded, deleted, re-invented and so forth all the time. Just keep doing what you're doing, if it's done in good faith there's absolutely no problem. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topoliana

The AfD consisted entirely of your text without the template, so I fixed it. Take care. --Finngall ^talk 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks, Finngall...not sure what happened, as I used the AFD1 process. Oh well, thanks for covering my back. AKRadecki 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent deltion, I'm not contesting, don't worry!

You recently deletedImage:Thomas Royds.jpg giving the reason "wiki use only (although, given the age, I suspect this could be a PD image)". I understand that it is not allowed if it is for wiki use only, but as I am not too good on copyright, I wonder if you could tell me what a "PD image" is? Just curious, as I am helping the guy who uploaded the image to make the article, and also if it is a PD image, I guess it is allowed? Thanks, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

PD means "Public Domain". Images older than 1923 are generally considered to have had their copyright expired, and default to the public domain (see Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Public_domain). Sorry for the short-hand, I should have explained better in my deletion reason. Hope this helps. AKRadecki 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll have to see what the user who uploaded it says about age etc., because I don't even know where they found the image! Thanks again, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

An important thing to remeber when uploading is to include the souce. Often, claims that it is in the PD are not sufficient as it isn ot verifiable. Including where the image was obtained, and any information available about it will really help. Thanks and good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A belated thank you

My dear Mr. Aredecki:

I cannot put into words how much it meant to me when I returned from my two-week road trip to Florida and South Carolina for my sister Sylvia's two ceremonies, to find your kind message in my in box. It has been a very hard month, and the notion that strangers only known to you through the magic world of the internet can be there for you is very touching. I thank you, sir.

Bless you,

Mark Sublette*

Falklands/Malvinas War; peace proposal

Thank you very much for your intervention there. --Guinnog 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I track C-130 airframes

What identity can you give me for the Mojave bird? Lars Olausson's 25th edition, 1954-2008, arrived in my mailbox last month...

Sub*

54-1639 is sitting without wings. The tail surfaces are removed but present. ASB Avionics uses it in developing avionics mods. AKRadecki 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

uSwitch

I've asked for a deletion review of uSwitch. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. By way of further explanation, I believe the page was wrongly listed for speedy deletion (with {{db-spam}}) — OwenBlacker 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan, please consider undeleting the article, this was a very poor deletion. A quick look at the deleted content does not suggest why on earth this was speedied. uSwitch as a valid company, who work much like Kelkoo but for utilities. They've been in the news plenty of times in the UK([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]), and are a partner of the Britannia Building Society ([6]) among others. This needed checking and editing, not a speedy deletion with no reason given. Neil (►) 12:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Neil, the article looked and read like spam, and still does, and it did have a deletion reason, spam. However, at your request, I've restored it, and left a note at DRV. I assume you'll be taking responsibilty for adding the sourcing and de-spamifying it? AKRadecki 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akradecki, I also thought the article looked like spam. I saw no assertion as to why this company was notable (i could be blind). OF the references, Uswitch does not appear to be the subject of any of them [7], [8], gives a brief mention along with several other "accredited" sites. Unless there were some serious reliable sources added, I would have deleted it too as spam. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Crappy references are not a reason to delete an article. I've provided 5 good ones in my above post. It would be nice if people did some homework rather than just clicking delete delete delete. But thank you for undeleting, Alan. I will have a stab at the article over the next few days. Neil (►) 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. But I somewhat disagree with your doing homework comment. Remember, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I do take deletions seriously, and do consider all aspects. And I do remember the "shoot spam on sight" instructions from the foundation. AKRadecki 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having undeleted it. I'm not sure I can see why you think that article was spam, but that's almost certainly down to my (obvious) bias (uSwitch are my employers). At least now, there can be some discussion on the issue but, as several UK users have pointed out on the deletion review, it's pretty hard to dispute that we're a notable company over here.

Thanks again, anyways. — OwenBlacker 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage is ready!

I hope you like the results, dear Alan, tho I must say I ended up making something that doesn't really comply with your expressed wishes of strong colors. I have no need to tell you that, if you don't like the design, please don't feel compelled to use it, as I don't have the slightest problem to make a new one if needed, nor I would be offended at all. However, I must confess to you I like the design myself, even tho it's not right that I say so (and normally I never do, trust me! ;) I hope you're doing fine, dear - talk to you later! Love, Phaedriel - 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll make me blush, Alan... ;) I'm so happy you liked it! Have a beautiful day. dear Mr. Pilot! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...You're most welcome! Pilot? Well, I have flown it, but I'm actually the maintainer...I know the old girl (the helo) inside and out, in a very "intimate" way, as I daily keep her going so that the pilot and med crews can be there when people really need them. Anyway, thanks so much again! AKRadecki 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Declining to unblock 65.86.196.211

Hi! Ref this diff [9]. This user isn't exactly abusing the unblock template now, but they have put up a load of fake unblock grants, and now they're trying to turn the talk page into a user page. Is that grounds for further action? Philip Trueman 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, thanks for the note AKRadecki 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the greet. I'm pretty familiar with the way things work, but the graffiti finally started to get to me and I decided to sign up and do something about it. Gariak 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my image?

Hi. Wish we had better circumstances under which we could meet. You deleted an image of mine that was under suspicion of copyright infringement. I do not sign on to Wikipedia every day, so I just learned of this false accusation this very moment. I would have addressed the accusation properly and proven that the image was my own and definitely NOT taken from salemalumni.org (or whatever the exact site name was), but I could not restore my image from my present location because you had deleted it. I'm very upset about this, and very disappointed that you did not discuss the deletion with me before removing my image in its entirety. You seem to be a fair person and considerate, especially in regard to keeping high the Wikipedia standards. I'm hoping that maybe you will know a way to restore the image, as I'm not even sure that I had a backup copy of it anywhere. Just know this: I NEVER visited the site I was accused of stealing the image from until today. The images weren't even the same-- my image had a white background, and the image I allegedly copied without authorization had no background. Please help me get my image (and my Wikipedia reputation) back! Hopefully you just accidentally did not address any questions to me about the image's authenticity before you deleted it. . . . Thanks! BFDhD 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me regarding the deleted image. First, if we can resolve this, the image can be restored. The main issue is the copyright. Is this entirely your own creation (I'm not just talking about the creation of this image file, but the actual design)? Did you get the design from elsewhere? The image appears on a website as a school mascot, and there is no Public Domain release there. Did you create it for the school site? These questions need to be clarified before we can release the image back into the encyclopedia. Thanks. AKRadecki 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I'm not sure what the answer to the copyright question is. Here's everything I know about the Quaker Sam mascot illustration. It is commonly used on several sites regarding Salem, Ohio, (including the one from which I was accused to have taken it, as well as an MSN group site called "Salem Quakers - From everywhere-even Salem,Ohio") and is the official school mascot image used in most all school (especially sports-)related things. It shows up on t-shirts/sweatshirts, is on the high school building, and was once seen on the free circular distributed by the school district. I got the illustration that eventually became my image several years ago, and it may have come off a yearbook or page of icons distributed by the high school art teacher. I scanned it onto my computer and created the image shown in PhotoShop, then uploaded it to WikiPedia. In my not-so-long lifetime, I have never seen the mascot with any sort of attribution. It may belong to one of two people in Salem, one of whom is deceased. The image has been in use since the 1980s (at least) in the city. --All of this, though, leads me to my second question: how is copyright defined by WikiPedia? If I created an image on my home computer, wouldn't that be my image? (Let's not presume I'm asking about the Quaker logo.) If I uploaded a file, but attributed it to the source and didn't claim copyright privileges, would that be permissible? I look forward to your response!BFDhD 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and the information. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, maybe not in the order you asked, though. Wikipedia's definition of copyright is the same as the law, and because of that, we cannot use any images that are not clearly free. If the copyright status is unclear, then we have to assume that it is copyrighted, because according to U.S. law, all images and texts are assumed to be copyrighted even if they don't specifically state so. In otherwords, copyright is the default state, unless there is clear release to the public domain or a specific license that expressly allows usage. If you created an image on your computer, of your own design, you would automatically own the copyright. However, if you copy the design of an image, the original creator still owns the copyright. For example, you cannot draw a picture of Mickey Mouse on your computer, post it to Wikipedia and release it to the public domain. Disney still owns the copyright to the design. This has actually been tested a number of times in court...one that I remember was a local day care center who had Disney characters painted on the outside walls of their building. Disney sued and won for copyright infringement. So, if the copyright status of the character that you drew is unclear, we have to assume that it is the property of someone somewhere, and simply can't allow it to be used here. There is a little leeway, for that you can read about the fair use provisions of copyright law, but they are pretty restrictive. If you want further, more formal review of the image by folks higher up here, you may list this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Hope this helps, I know it isn't the answer you wanted, but as visible as Wikipedia is, we have to be really careful with copyright issues. AKRadecki 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a lovely explanation, and it is perfectly fine with me. I'm going to do a little investigating into the rights and see if something can be submitted (not necessarily by me) in the future. It's better that we and Wikipedia be ultra-vigilant about these sort of things, but it can be confusing to sort out sometimes. Thanks for your help!BFDhD 16:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

hi again. Quick question (if you know or can direct me): what is Wikipedia's policy on attributed images? That is, can images (low res) be posted, if they are attributed, or is the policy equivalent to "rights and permissions" in the book publishing world? -Specifically, can a user upload images from the Library of Congress website (public domain) and post them, noting LOC provenance, and would images from patents be usable, as well? (Again, sorry if this is unduly burdensome to ask you. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this sort of thing, so I thought I'd give it a shot.) Thanks! BFDhD 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not burdensome at all, its one of the tasks I gladly do around here as an admin. First, for attributed images: if the image is copyrighted with no explicit licenses, that would fall under our non-free content guidelines, what's called "fair use" around here and in the copyright world. It is possible to use such images, but there's a set of 10 criteria that all have to be met, and it the images meets these, it's very important to document this to keep the image from being tagged for deletion.

There's also a licensing system that might help. If the creator of the image or work wants to retain some rights, but will allow the image to be used by others, they might be willing to license it under the Creative Commons licenses (my own images on Wikipedia are licensed this way). Note that there are several different license levels. WP won't accept ones that are restricted to educational or non-commercial use only. They will, however, accept "attribution required" licenses.

As for LOC images, if the LOC website specifically states that the images are public domain, we welcome such images here. Be careful, however! Just because an image is in the LOC collection doesn't mean that it's public domain. LOC's copyright policy makes it clear that at least some of their material still has copyrights, and it's the user's responsibility to seek copyright permissions.

I really don't know about images that are part of a patent package. I would suggest doing some research at the U.S. Patent office's website. Since a patent is designed to protect the design, I would think it's protection would extend, like a copyright, to the drawings in the application, but that's just my speculation. Wikipedia:Public domain would be a good resorce to check out. Hope that helps! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

[Former location of now-moved anti-vandal barnstar from Xtreme racer] Wow...thanks! AKRadecki 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AIR A129 International Diagram lg.jpg

Alan, could you take a look at Image:AIR A129 International Diagram lg.jpg? It had been added to the Agusta A129 Mangusta page, but I removed it as its sourcing seemed fishy. User:Jedi-gman claims to be the creator of the work, but it looks like a scan from a magazine, possibly AIR International. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call! I'm in a rush right now, so I don't have time to find the appropriate template to tag the article as suspect, but if I'm not beat to it, I'll try to get that latter this afternoon. AKRadecki 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AGLOCO

You should be aware that anonymous edits are being made to leverage the AllAdvantage article as a promotional tool for AGLOCO, in violation of WP's terms-of-use. I respectfully ask that you reconsider the legitimacy of that redirect and act accordingly. Groupthink 10:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. AKRadecki 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)