User talk:ElinorD/Archive06

This is an archive Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Thank you. My archived talk Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Your help Hi Elinor, I just wanted to thank you here also, in addition to my talk page, for your detailed and accurate explanations regarding the undeletion problem. I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your message regarding the recent improper reversal of the block I issued. Your comments and help are very much appreciated. Crum375 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Welcome on both counts, particularly the second. ElinorD (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Your revert Thanks. Clearly a rascist [1], SqueakBox 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) No problem. Blocked by Wknight94.[2] ElinorD (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Yep, I just thanked him too, SqueakBox 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC) A little help Would you be willing to give us a hand at early Christianity cleaning up (in general and original research/POV) and expanding the sources & text? Thanks! Vassyana 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. I hope you're doing well! :o) I've just added it to my watchlist. Good to hear from you. :-) ElinorD (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) McKeesport Seal Why was the McKeesport seal (from the McKeesport, Pennsylvania article) considered to be a non-free image? Aren't logos considered free images?Skeetidot 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC) No, they're not, otherwise we wouldn't have a {{Non-free logo}} template for tagging. The deletion log shows that I deleted it per WP:CSD#I6, which means that it was tagged as missing a fair use rationale, and that it was put into a special category for non-free images without fair use rationale, and was left in that cagegory for at least seven days before being deleted. Hope that helps. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Threats Please do not threaten me. Or, if you wish to abuse your power, why don't you just pre-emptively block me now, before we can get in an argument? Or perhaps you don't see the humoor in my hostile reply to your hostile attack? linas 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you! :) Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear Eli! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC) It's only fair that I correspong to that delicious Ice cream only you can make with a little cake, my dear Eli... tho trust me, with this kind of heat, I'd keep the ice cream any day! ;) (and btw, hope you got my last email, my friend - and let me emphasize what I said there!) Thank you so much! xxx, Sharon Fair Use I put in almost all my images a statement that they had that they had been editted for the purpose of illustration, which was sufficient before as a fair use rationale..and now this Videmus jerk has tagged ALL of my images soley becuase I deleted the fair use tag on one..did he really need to tag every pic I ever uploaded? It will take a lot of work and I don't have that much time..can I remove the tags and work on a "better" fair use rationale..if not I'll just delete my account becuase Wikipedia is supposed to be a way to share information/not becomae a source of stress and irritation. NeoCoronis 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Hi NeoCoronis, I'm afraid that "it illustrates the subject" is not a fair use rationale. Please do not remove tags that say that an image is missing a fair use rationale unless and until you have written one. To satisfy our policy, a fair use image has to meet all ten conditions at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If you start tagging the images correctly, and find that the seven days are coming to an end when you've only tagged half of them, and you really need more time, I'll willingly give you more time. You only have to ask. But all I've seen you doing is removing the tags that say that the images don't have a fair use rationale. Please try to understand that writing "this is fair use" or "this illustrates the subject of the article" is not writing a fair use rationale. As I said at your talk page, you'll find people willing to help you at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. And yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a way to share information — information that is freely licensed. ElinorD (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC) And see also WP:FURG for help on how to write a fair use rationale. None of your image uploads that I've seen conformed to that. Again, I'd like to assure you that people will be willing to help you if you want to understand and follow our policy. ElinorD (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I have someone coming in and bad tagging images that have been on the server in an article that's been there since 2003. Has teher been a change in the policies or is this a form of vandalism? Alatari 05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I missed this message at the time. You don't specify exactly which user or which images you're talking about, but yes, our policy is stricter now, or else it's being enforced more, and no, it's definitely not vandalism. I believe, for example, that the policy of not using fair use images of people who are still alive only came in a year ago, though I'm not sure when. If someone is tagging images, those images will go into a special category, and if the problem isn't fixed, they'll probably be deleted a week later, but the administrator will look at the image first. For example if the image is tagged as having no source, but really does have a source, the uploader can remove the tag, and the administrator won't delete if they notice that the image was tagged in error. ElinorD (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Claims of harassment I've been an admin on Wikipedia for years now, and it has always been possible to discuss the actions of an admin on his personal page and expect some kind of meaningful answer. I don't think it is rude, harassment, or a personal attack, to point to some admin who closed an AfD on a very sensitive topic that this admin did not exerce due caution, and to expect at least some meaningful answer beyond some vague claim of personal attack. David.Monniaux 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I have absolutely no idea whether or not the AfD was properly closed. I haven't looked, and it doesn't really interest me. I'd like to invite you to reflect on whether referring to an admin who makes spelling errors because of a disability as "a semiliterate teenager from Florida, whose main interest is sports" is in very good taste, and whether it would have been possible to raise your concerns about the AfD closure without stooping to such a low attack. You might also ask yourself what purpose it served to replace your message after the user had removed it from his page. I generally think that when a user removes a message from his page it's sufficient indication that he has seen it. So what purpose does it serve to force him to display on his page that he's a "a semiliterate teenager"? It's not going to make him reply, if he doesn't want to. Raising your concerns without indulging in "below the belt" jibes would have been a much better way of getting a response. By the way, I consider myself to be a good speller. But you know, I value an inbuilt wish that I have not to humiliate or taunt people much more highly than I value my spelling skills. Best regards. ElinorD (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I find it amusing that you are claiming that such or such action is a "below the belt attack" while you admit that you did not know the issue discussed. Oh, well, nevermind. David.Monniaux 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I don't need to know whether or not an AfD was properly closed in order to know that it's rude to call someone a "semiliterate teenager", and that it's bad form to force people to keep unwanted messages on their talk pages. Assuming that you're correct about the AfD, your remarks don't suddenly become decent and polite. ElinorD (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Well, I consider that it is very rude and presumptuous for an admin to tackle a very inflammatory and delicate debate and close it with a message such as both sides does have valid and invalid reasons for both keeping the article and deleting it, the deleting agruements were weaker in my opinion, many delete as nonsense votes. At least, when you do that, you should make a honest attempt at summarizing the arguments and explaining your decision. Otherwise, your action seem ham-handed, and very much like "I did not fully comprehend the debate but my gut feeling is that I don't care". I did not call this person a semiliterate teenager (I note though that he is a teenager). I said that this is how the media would call him if they saw this discussion. Ruling according to truthiness and gut feelings is wrong in general, but it seems even more wrong if the person who makes the ruling has obviously no experience in the topic discussed. David.Monniaux 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) User:Salmoria User has been revert warring for months using IPs (see history of Tina Turner) and has been using them to remove deletion tags from images he's uploaded. When I gave him an absolute last warning[3] he claimed his account was compromised[4]. I see since that last warning he's uploaded yet another copyvio image and used an IP to remove deletion tags from an image you tagged[5]. Checkuser confirmed user had also used another account both here and on Commons to violate copyright.[6][7]. I posted at ANI before the latest violations but nothing was done. Since the user violated an absolute last warning, surely this user should be blocked? -Nard 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I have blocked this user for 1 month. The evidence N presents is persuasive that the user has intentionally and repeatedly uploaded copyright violations, removed warnings, and used anon IPs to avoid detection. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Talk page bans I noticed a message you left on another users talk page, stating users are permitted to ban other users from their talk pages. How do I go about this? Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I don't know where I'm supposed to say that, but it doesn't reflect my thoughts. Users are permitted to remove unwanted messages from their talk pages, and it's very poor form to edit war to restore them. It's also poor form to continue to post on someone's page if that person has made it clear they don't want your posts. In extreme cases, I wouldn't rule out blocking someone for harassment who continued to do so, though I don't think I ever have done that (I've seen it done, though). Sorry I can't be of more help. ElinorD (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No I guess it is not official, just as you stated, "poor form." I read a post on a users page, I misunderstood that to mean there may be official policy somewhere. Thank you for your assistance. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Perhaps you can weigh in on this conversation User_talk:NYScholar#Blocked a user was blocked for removing comments from their talk page, by someone who they made it clear to, they did not want posting on their page. I am a little confused now on the situation as you noted and as has occurred here. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Elinor, since SevenOfDiamonds has now posted his/her problem on ANI, here, and mentions you there, perhaps that would be an even better place to weigh in? Just a thought, I'm not trying to short-circuit you, SevenOfDiamonds. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC). Thanks, Bishonen. I was going to add a comment after dinner, but I see the thread has been archived. It does seem inappropriate to block someone for removing unwanted comments from his own talk page, unless there's a lot more to this that I don't know about. ElinorD (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC) It wouldn't be a short circuit, and I was not the one who posted the problem. I have received an answer however through Flyguy regarding the issue and after Mango admitted that you cannot be cited for 3RR on your page. I am sorry I forgot to direct you to ANI. I actually posted at ANI that I asked you to weigh in, then apparently forgot to ask. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) RfA? You opposed my candidacy for adminship in my RfA that closed on April 6, 2007. As you're probably aware, I opened an RfC on myself to address the concerns raised during the RfA. In addition, since that time, I've resumed editing articles (detailed on my talk page) and participated in peer, A-class, and Good Article reviews. I was considering accepting a re-nomination for admin and was wondering if you still had any concerns of questions that I could try to address in advance? Cla68 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) It will take some time to answer that; when I do get round to it, it will probably be on your talk page. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Vandalism:Roman Catholic Church I don't know what your on about, i haven't even gone on that page, unless something glithced and sent it to the wrong person i don't know what your on about —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 16:45, 1 August 2007 (talk • contribs) 62.136.31.241. If you look at the contributions for your IP, you'll see that somebody from your IP vandalised the article on 5 June.[8] My warning was sent on the same date.[9] This is nearly two months later. There's no reason to suppose it was the same person. If you have a randomly assigned IP, or if you share a computer with others, you're bound to get messages which are meant for someone else. Apologies for the annoyance. To avoid it in the future, why not create an account? ElinorD (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse I've noticed an IP has copy/pasted information about Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse from news articles. This is clearly a good faith edit, though I'm concerned of copyright. Rather than just blanking half the page I'd like to check though. Should the copyvio parts be removed? -WarthogDemon 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, definitely. As an alternative to blanking, short quotations can be given, if they're clearly sourced. (Longer quotations wouldn't be appropriate as the article at the moment is so short.) Also, the material could be completely rewritten, though that does not mean just changing "many" to "several" and changing "little" to "small". If you have reason to believe it's a copyright violation, and haven't got time to fix it, you shouldn't hesitate to remove it. ElinorD (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Done, thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 00:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC) thanks I appreciate the revert and warning. ThuranX 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Sadness Hi Elinor, I just noticed you posting this on NY Brad's talk page: perhaps you mean this quotation? Cheers, and keep up all the good work! Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Many thanks for that. Yes, I think that was exactly what I was looking for. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Be still my beating heart... when the word "sadness" appeared at my watchlist, I rushed over here as fast as I could, Eli - it's great to see it's just a false alarm :) Love you girl. Phaedriel - 02:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I'm confident that if it's ever a genuine alarm, you'll be here to help. :-) ElinorD (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) File:Jp01.jpg Hi. I was just wondering if you'd be willing to further explain your conclusion that the image of J. P. Calderon you deleted was "used to show what a living person looks like." As I'm sure you read, my interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-free content allows the cover to be used alongside critical commentary of the item. Do you believe that the article lacks critical commentary, or is your interpretation different from mine? Also, would it be possible to either userfy or move to the article's talk page the discussions on the image page and its talk page? I think they'll be found useful. --Maxamegalon2000 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I have undeleted the image talk page; I wasn't completely sure that I was doing the right thing in deleting that. And I have posted some comments there. In the meantime, another user has taken it to deletion review. ElinorD (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Whoa there Do you think I actually care what you have to say? Go play out your powertrip on someone else.Hexrei 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC) You're doing a great job too, Elinor! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) JP Calderon image There was a long and detailed discussion of this image, which pretty well established that the image was not simply being used to illustrate his appearance. I don't know why you chose to ignore that discussion and unilaterally delete the image but I would appreciate it if you would restore it. Thank you. Otto4711 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I didn't ignore it. I read it carefully, and came to a different conclusion from yours. The image had been in a category for speedy deletion since 20 June, and was the only image left there, so clearly a decision was overdue. In any case, I have undeleted the image talk page, and you have taken it to deletion review, so the discussion can continue at those two places. ElinorD (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) DRV on Image:Amyphoto.jpg Just an FYI that there is a DRV discussion currently occurring about an image that you speedy deleted several times. The other admin who deleted the photo once is already in the middle of the discussion, and I wanted to alert you in case you wanted to weigh in on the issue. - TexasAndroid 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you for letting me know. I don't have a strong opinion on the image itself, but it is a bit of a problem that a user keeps re-uploading it after it has been deleted. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Image:Charleswallace.jpg Thanks for the heads up on a ratonale for Image:Charleswallace.jpg. I've tried to get all my book covers tagged, but I haven't made the same effort on my screen captures yet. I'll try to take care of them all over the weekend. Regards - Karen | Talk | contribs 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. Let me know if you need any help. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks! EndlessDesign has been a bit of a problem lately. --Basique 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the revert Thanks for keeping an eye on my user space[10]. Until(1 == 2) 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your comment/related request for assistance Thank you for your comment. I still believe that the recent block against me for removing offensive and unwanted comments from my own talk page are unwarranted. The unblock request did not get acted upon before the block expired, but the history of blocks is misleading as the block is really not warranted in my own view and the view of some other administrators. (The blocking administrator (User:Mangojuice) (who says s/he is going on vacation) refers to a "long history of blocks" on my account in his reply to User talk:Newyorkbrad (another administrator), without recognizing that some of those blocks were reverted by administrators shortly after they were set due to errors in the blocks; cf. comment before yours by User:SevenOfDiamonds as well. In my view, Mango's last two blocks of my account and the previous one by another administrator were all unfair blocks. [restored orig. posting date] --NYScholar 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) My unblock request and the related discussion are now archived at User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13#Note well. --NYScholar 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) ... [This got too long for your talk page; I moved a piece to my own talk page archive 13.] --NYScholar 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)] DRV notice An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Jp01.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 15:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. ElinorD (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Image:Dash (The Incredibles).jpg A basic rationale is given under the heading Licensing. If it is inadaquate it can and should be disputed, b ut to say that it is non-existant is incorrect. I have copied it here for reference: The use of this image in Dash (The Incredibles) and List of Characters in The Incredibles constitutes fair use under U.S. law and Wikipedia policy. No free alternative exists or could reasonably be created. The image adds significantly to the articles by clearly ilustrating and identifying the subject. Eluchil404 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Okay, I apologise. There are thousands of images that are missing tags, and I'm using a special tool which tags them and notifies users in one click. Because there's such a huge backlog, I check the image page briefly, then press the button without rechecking and rechecking and rechecking, and then move on to the next one. I've tagged hundreds of images in the last few days, and have probably got about five wrong, of which I spotted and corrected a few myself. By the way, there was no need to copy and paste the rationale here. I would have taken your word for it, and could have very easily checked anyway. I do think the rationale for using that image in List of Characters in The Incredibles is a bit dubious, but don't intend to follow up, as there are so many examples of obviously egregious violations, that it's not worth chasing the borderline ones. :-) Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I apologize for being so snippy with you. After reviewing WP:FUC I have to agree that the rationale is a bit weak but am not really sure what the best course for improvement is. But like you I am perfectly happy to go on to more important things. Best wishes! Eluchil404 18:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that. And I didn't find your message snippy. I'm expecting to get a lot worse than that as I continue my image work! I've already seen some of the abuse that gets hurled at editors who are active in that area. And I'm quite sure that I'll sometimes tag things that shouldn't be tagged and delete things that shouldn't be deleted. There seem to be thousands of problematic images here at en, and we don't always have time to give each case the attention it deserves. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Images in Dreadwing Hi, Abu. I was going through the article Dreadwing, tagging images as lacking fair use rationale. Most of them had a {{Non-free comic}} licence tag, which made them fair use (whether valid or invalid fair use). Three of them were marked as {{PD-release}}. Could you check that that's correct, please. The images are: Image:G2 dreadwing.jpg Image:Rid dread.jpg Image:Dreadwing en.jpg Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) The tags say "Public domain This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder", but there's no info on who the copyright holder is. I've tagged them as no-source. --Abu badali (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC) More advice requested Hello again. I was working my way through the now-deleted Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 July 2007. Sometimes, when I'm doing this work, I come across an image that is tagged as having no rationale, when in fact it does have one. Sometimes, it's obvious that the rationale is completely invalid, at least in the article in which the image is used. For example, Image:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg has as the rationale that it shows how easily Saddam sat in his throne. I recently removed it from the article about the year 2006! There were three images which I removed from the category, because they did have a rationale. I wanted to delete the category so that admins can move on to the next one in the backlog. However, since I have doubts as to the validity of the rationales, I'd appreciate if you could take a look. The images are: Image:Edna Mode.jpg Image:Nurseppe.jpg Image:Shot00011.jpg By the way, the image Image:Jp01.jpg was in one of these categories, and I deleted it, but there have been complaints at my talk page. I have now undeleted Image talk:Jp01.jpg, so that the discussion can continue. I'm not sure that I was right to delete the talk page as well. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC) The Saddam rationale is the funniest I have ever seen. I believe the source for Image:Edna Mode.jpg is invalid, as it's kind of a fansite (and not the copyright holder). The rationale for Image:Nurseppe.jpg is invalid. I've tagged it as replaceable (more explanation on Image_talk:Nurseppe.jpg. It has no source info as well. I'm not sure about Image:Shot00011.jpg. I approve the deletion of Image:Jp01.jpg, and have stated that on the DRV. --Abu badali (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks again for your expertise, Abu. ElinorD (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Request for advice re Talk:University of Oxford Hi, I came across this article talk page, specifically this section, which I consider baiting and flaming, in breach of WP:CIVIL and unacceptable behaviour on an article talk page. I checked out the guidelines on how to respond: I've warned the user, and also added in a template message to the section on the talk page itself, but wondered if you could give me some advice on application of WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments and if it's appropriate to do so? I don't want to make things worse! Can the off-topic/uncivil remarks be archived or something? ColdmachineTalk 14:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I'll take a look later. ElinorD (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I've had a look. The conversation is certainly a bit off topic, and is not uniformly civil, but I don't see anything requiring urgent admin intervention. I wouldn't recommend removing comments unless they're clearly trolling. The discussion seems to have burned itself out, anyway. ElinorD (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Talkpage archiving I'd rather like to archive the (now uselessly) deleted contents of my talkpage if you don't have any objections. Would you prefer to do the restoration yourself? ~Kylu (u|t) 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Feel free, unless you'd prefer me to do it. ElinorD (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Okie dokie, thanks. Also, I figured I'd bring your attention to m:CheckUser privacy (basically, hints for keeping your private information private) that I wrote some time ago. If you'd like to contribute some ideas, we'd appreciate it! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that, Kylu. I've taken a brief look at it, and have added it to my meta watchlist, for closer examination later. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:MH_Mail_(email_client).png I'm not the uploader, and I haven't edited the page. Why are you bothering me? --minghong 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not. Look at the diff. I've never edited your page. ElinorD (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the message Thanks for the nice message; I am back. I think I need to learn better coping skills on here. --David Shankbone 13:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Good to see you back. ElinorD (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Talk:Daniel Brandt Hi there. You deleted the page Talk:Daniel Brandt. This was confusing because the last edit to Daniel Brandt, back in June 2007, said "Per discussion on talk; feel free to change this if someone comes up with a good reason". I think I've come up with a solution, and would like to mention it on the talk page, or indeed implement it straightaway. My idea is to have Daniel Brandt redirect to Brandt, where there would be a mini-disambiguation page on Brandt, mentioning the articles he is mentioned in. I will demonstrate over there. The redirect would be of the form "#REDIRECT [[Brandt#Daniel Brandt]]", and there would be a span id tag on Brandt to take the reader directly to the correct place. This should avoid edit warring over which article Daniel Brandt redirects to, though ultimately it would be simpler to delete the redirect altogether. I've also contacted A Man In Black to get another opinion on this. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC) As proof of concept, I found some unprotected Brandt redirects, and changed them to use the above system. See Daniel Leslie Brandt, Dan Brandt, Daniel L. Brandt, and Danny Brandt. The only redirect not changed is the protected one at Daniel Brandt. Carcharoth 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC) They got reverted. Well done Elinor, please let things be Carcharoth, SqueakBox 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC) What do you mean "well done Elinor"? You did the reversions, not her. I think the current status is that one of the redirects above has been left the way I changed it, and Brandt itself contains what I propose could be the disambiguation for Brandt. Unless that has been reverted again. Personally, I think Daniel Brandt should appear at the dab page, unlinked (this is fairly common for dab pages), with a link to one of the other articles on his companies, and that the history at the redirect Daniel Brandt should be moved to a subpage of the talk page of one of the companies he founded, and then the redirect deleted and salted. I would discuss on the talk page, but that got deleted for some reason. I'm not trying to stir things up, but was checking through some old edits I did and I reviewed the status of things after that DRV, and I was surprised that no-one had thought to try and redirect Daniel Brandt to Brandt (at least not after the DRV). It is, after all, a logical place to redirect to. Carcharoth 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Since Talk:Daniel Brandt is deleted (something I'm not entirely happy with, but whatever), I'd suggest discussing any such change of the redirect at Talk:Public Information Research. But, since my opinion was requested, I don't see the need for this. Right now, all of our articles on Brandt's projects are already mentioned in Public Information Research, which is where Daniel Brandt currently redirects. (Plus, this introduces, in its one single sentence, one of the facts in dispute from the old article: namely, what occupation to ascribe to Brandt.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Ah, right. Maybe if the original talk page hadn't been deleted, I might have been able to read that "occupation dispute" bit? If that is the case, I'm happy to drop this. Thanks for taking the time to explain, unlike the other two editors. Elinor, sorry for dropping this on your talk page, but that's what happens when talk pages get deleted! :-) Carcharoth 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Cool, SqueakBox 05:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) No worries, I'm glad you let me know. The Brandt solution probably would have been better back when we still had a couple of other articles from the Daniel Brandt split, but those articles have since been merged or deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) This seems to have all been settled while I was asleep, so there's nothing much for me to add. ElinorD (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Jossi Since you spoke up for Jossi, could you please invite him to discuss whatever issues he has with my edits instead of reverting? I promise to be on my best behavior. --Ideogram 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I don't see that asking an editor not to be abusive towards another editor means that I have to monitor the other editor's reverts. I'm sure if you're on your best behaviour, you can ask him yourself without giving offence! ElinorD (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Upload of Amy Image? Hi Elinor! We got fair use permisssion from Ohio School Pictures. Release from Ohio School Pictures to use photo of Amy Mihaljevic in the Wikipedia Article (implied Fair Use Release) Can you please reupload the image again? I'd do it, but I'm quite busy. Blue BlueSapphires 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Image:Amyphoto.jpg has been restored by another admin, but there are still problems as Wikipedia does not accept images with permission just for Wikipedia (see here), so it will have to be tagged as fair use, with a valid fair use rationale. ElinorD (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Re: Talk:Jimmy Wales I respectfully disagree. I believe that the Brian Peppers incident is as relevant as the other controversies listed on Mr. Wales's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H4lf (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 August 2007. The relevant place to discuss that is here. ElinorD (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Sure, I await your response. I hope you can appreciate that I'm not trying to be antagonistic. --H4lf 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) The subject is not notable.--MONGO 17:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Agree with MONGO. (And good to know you're still watching my page, MONGO. I haven't seen you around for a while.) ElinorD (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I'm just being a good wittle editor, trying to behave myself. Cheers!--MONGO 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Amyphoto.jpg - Done with Non-free rationale / Apology Thank you for your patience, and apologies if I was rude. Really, you have no idea what stress I'm under right now, and I was really upset to see an additional hurdle arrive today, which entailed a warning tag. Please, if there is anything pressing about this photo, vis-a-vis copyright matters, would you please try to put a note on my talk page? I'm not on Wikipedia much generally. It is fun, but I'm simply not in the right life-space for it, as is evident. I've far too many obligations. Thank you for helping me to sort this out; I felt this was important enough to give time and focus. Take care. BlueSapphires 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Oh really, there's nothing at all to apologise for. I appreciate the trouble you've gone to, and understand that this has been a frustrating experience for you. I can't promise that the image will be kept, although I'm feeling increasingly hopeful that it will be. But I can promise that it's not going to be deleted the second the seven days are up, just because you've only done 95% of the necessary work in getting it properly tagged. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC) CHAPD patch removed from Chicago Housing Authority Police Department site... Hi there, I'm confused about why our department patch was taken down? I looked for an explaination, but didn't see one. I'm not even sure if I should be contacting you here. My other images are still posted, will they be pulled too? I am new to wikipedia and I'm trying to learn the ropes. I want this to be a great and informative site and I have more images and subject matter I'd like to add. Help please! X CHA PO 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Hi, I presume you're speaking of this edit and this deletion. First of all, I sometimes delete over a hundred images a day, from special categories of images that have been tagged (usually by other editors) for deletion, so it's not likely that I'd remember a special instance. Looking at the logs and the deleted edits, I see that it was deleted per WP:CSD#i4. I see also that it was tagged by OrphanBot on 2 August as {{Untagged}}. That tag gave a link to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, which would have helped you to choose an appropriate tag. However, at the time that I deleted it, the only information you had added was "This patch was worn by police officer for the Chicago Housing Authority from 1991 until 1999." If an image is free, you need to state clearly that you took the photo and release it under a free licence (choosing an appropriate one) or into the public domain, or you need to show clearly where the image came from, so that others can verify that it is indeed a free image. If it's not free, you also need to show where it came from, so that others can verify it, and you need to make an appropriate fair use claim for it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content. With regard to the photo that I deleted, I could easily undelete it, except that I'm wondering if it might be a derivative work, which means, basically, a photo taken of something like a logo or a some other work which already had a copyright before you took the photo. You might like to check out the link about derivative works as well. Sorry if this is all a bit overwhelming. We have very strict copyright policies here, as part of our mission is to build a free encyclopaedia, which can be reused, altered, and redistributed by others, and having too much non-free content interferes with that goal. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) My appologies if I'm coming across as dense, but I thought I typed the same statement for all of my images. I did photograph the patch, and it came off of my uniform. If you are refering to the original designer of the patch, I'd have no idea where to find that person. I was going to replace the patch with a picture of my star. Would we have the same problem? I notice the CPD site has a photo of an officer in uniform. Could I use a picture like that? Also, how do I get the text to wrap aound an image? Thanks for all of your help. X CHA PO 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm not an expert on derivative works. It does seem that the image I deleted was some kind of logo, or at least had a design that was the work of someone other than the photographer. If I design a logo, or produce a lovely design for the wrapping of a bar of chocolate, then the copyright is mine (unless it has been transferred to someone else). If you take a photo, then the copyright is still mine, but you own the copyright of whatever new creativity is in your photography. That would apply particularly if you took a photo of a statue that I had sculpted, as there would be some skill involved. That wouldn't apply if you just do a computer scan of a book cover. You wouldn't get any credit for that. If you see this image, you'll see that the copyright for the design of the book cover has expired, so it has a tag to show that, but that I took a three-dimensional photo of it, so I gained the copyright of that (which I released into the public domain). If the thing that I am photographing is something to which someone holds the copyright for the design, the fact that I took the new photograph does not mean that the photo copyright is now mine, to do with as I please. As for inserting images into articles with the correct format, try something like: [[Image:StrawberryIce.jpg|thumb|200 px|right|Strawberry ice cream.]] or [[Image:Popcornmaker.jpg|thumb|right|A home popcorn-maker.]] putting your text immediately after it. Use the preview button to see what it looks like. If necessary, ask on the article talk page. You can link on a talk page to an image without displaying it by placing a colon immediately after the second square bracket, like this: [[:Image:StrawberryIce.jpg]] I hope that helps. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Queensland Rugby League Hi Elinor. I have added the source for the image and undeleted the image. Pascal.Tesson 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. Since rollback generally gives the impression of reverting a bad faith edit, you might consider not using it on someone who is doing routing image cleanup work from backlogged speedy deletion cetegories. I'm fairly thick skinned, but I know that others find it offensive. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Kunt and the Gang image Kunt and the Gang (band) image has been removed by yourself. Why was this? The photo was taken by myself and I highlighted as such? Ta --Catten666 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I have reverted the image back to how it was. I think I know what has happened. The original image was quite rightly, against wiki's terms. Although I could have got permission from Kunt himself to use the logo I thought it far less hassle to upload a picture taken myself, which I changed when I got the deletion request. I assume your deletion was meant for the old image as the deletion log says I had 48hrs notice. The files had the same name. If the picture on it now is still against your terms (shouldn't be as it's my photo and I couldn't care where it it is posted) then let me know reasons why and I will rectify. Ta --Catten666 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in responding. The image is fine now, as far as I can see. The original image page said "band picture, from the web site www.kuntandthegang.co.uk". That would normally mean it was fair use (unless the website in question said it was released under a free licence). So it would have needed detailed information concerning source, copyright, and an explanation as to why it was necessary for the article it was used in, such that its absence would be detrimental to the understanding of the article content. Thanks for sorting it out. It's always great to see people uploading their own images under a free licence. ElinorD (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) I noticed, or think I noticed that you removed a bunch of record cover images from The Shadows article. Has it been decided that record covers can't be posted on articles in wikipedia? Carptrash 20:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) And your answer to my question is . . . . . . . . . . ........... what? Carptrash 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Coming tomorrow. ElinorD (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Cool. I posted them several years ago, so can easily wait another day. It is also interesting to me that I can't discover, in the History of the article, when it was that I added them. It is as if I was never there. Is that something that you could also explain to me? Carptrash 14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry about the delay. Images of record covers are copyrighted images. We try to keep their use to a minimum, as excessive use interferes with our mission of building a free encyclopaedia which can be used, reused, redistributed (even for commercial gain), modified, etc. See WP:NFC and Resolution:Licensing policy. See also especially WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. My understanding is that a record cover could be used in an article about that particular record. But when lots of record covers are used in articles about a singer or a band, we have to ask ourselves if they may be serving a mainly decorative function, rather than significantly increasing readers' understanding of the topic. And yes, I think the policy has become more strict than it was in, say, 2004, although I wasn't around then! I see some editors reacting with annoyance when something that they uploaded in accordance with the policy then (or so they claim, but I don't actually know) gets tagged or deleted or removed from articles. I think, for example, that it was once acceptable (or at least not completely forbidden) to have a non-free image of a living person. Now, that's no longer seen as acceptable, because some Wikipedian could go along to a concert, a lecture, etc. and take a photo and upload it under a free licence. I hope that helps. And the images may have been added by Shirimasen in May 2005.[11] ElinorD (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Thnaks for your reply. I like change. Change is good. is one of my mantras. I don't always believe it, but saying it supplies some comfort. But this is why I no leanger add content to very many articles. Someone comes along and something does not fit their idea of what the article should be, so, --------> out it goes I suspect that you might be thinking Please listen to me. Record covers are not content, but I would beg to differ. I have those covers now because i got them in 1960 (or whatever) as part of my enjoyment and understanding and appreciation of the bands involved and I feel that they DO add more than just a decorative flourish to the articles (which, by the way I feel DOES inprove the articles in any case, especially a long one such as The Shadows - which has been reduced to being a dreaded WALL OF TEXT) . But there you have it. A difference of opinion (not the first on wikipedia) and both the covers and the fact that I was very there seem to have "vanished in a haze". The link that you posted was (I think) User:Shirimasen putting the images back in 2005 after some one else had removed them. I guess the unknown person who removed then then gets the last laugh. Carptrash 13:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC) H I need to get into contact with H. Do you know how? --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Try Special:Emailuser/H. ElinorD (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I'm sure he has reincarnated with another username somewhere on Wikipedia. This issue is old news and is probably best forgotten. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I very much doubt he has. --Deskana (banana) 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Two points 1-I cannot be blocked for trolling without warnings or a record of the offense (whish I do not have) 2-The offer isn't friendly, it's disciplinary. The differrence is very great. Thanks for your concern, I won't be taking any more hate mail on the subject. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) User has been indefinitely blocked (though not by me)! ElinorD (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks thks for ur help! DarkPaladinexe 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. ElinorD (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Gee,thanks E Hi ElinorD, I am Angel David, you were the one who saved my user page from Mozo's destruction of it. And I, thank you for doing so1 I am giving you a barn star on your user page--Angel David 15:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Image:Jack Turner (writer) PromoPhoto.jpg Hello. I cannot understand why Image:Jack Turner (writer) PromoPhoto.jpg was speedy deleted. After receiving the notification that the photo was being considered for deletion, I carefully went through and added the appropriate tag to say that the claim was disputed, wrote a detailed explanation on the talk page, and then added a detailed fair use rationale on the image description page, too. I was not aware of the template on WP:FURG (which I only found after reading this talk page after the image was deleted). The complaint is that the image is "replaceable" with free content. As I explained on the image's talk page, it's not very likely that a free photo will come up, unless his wife (the person who originally took the photo I uploaded) releases it to the public. As I also explained, he is a TV personality and author, and there is at least one other author in a similar field. By providing the photo, it helps the readers quickly tell which Jack Turner is the correct one. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale here. To me, when a photo is clearly intended for the purpose of promoting and identifying a person, it was taken by the person's family, the person is identified visually because of the media in which he is notable, and it helps Wikipedia readers better recognize and identify the person, then a fair use image seems perfectly appropriate whether the person is alive or dead. Perhaps it's just a case that if you bend the rules in this one case, 20 other people will argue for their photos to be exempted. If that's the case, I understand, but I still think it's a disservice to the readers. Thanks in advance for helping me to understand the thought process here. If you have anything in writing that is a bit clearer than WP:CSD#i7 (which really doesn't explain things at all), I'd appreciate a link. In fact, it's no wonder that there are so many fair use violations... the policies concerning it are highly confusing, and I consider myself at or above average when it comes to copyright and fair use laws. Have a great day. --Willscrlt (Talk) 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Hi, Will. First of all, the deletion has nothing to do with the fact that you didn't use the template in WP:FURG. I believe I've written Fair Use rationales which didn't use a template. The problem is that it is a replaceable image. Except in very, very limited circumstances, all images of living people are considered to be replaceable. That is because it's possible for some Wikipedian, somewhere in the world, to go along to some function where this person is speaking (a person notable enough to have their own article will presumably appear at lectures, conferences, book signings, etc.) and take a photo. Sometimes I see a fair use rationale that claims that the image is fair use because it would be unreasonable to expect the person writing the rationale to get on a plane to Europe (or elsewhere) to take a photo. Irreplaceable doesn't mean that you can't replace it with a free image; it means that it's completely unreasonable to expect that any Wikipedian in any part of the world would be able to take a photo of this person (and that the person and/or their agents would refuse to give a freely-licensed image on request). In addition to that, you have to show how the photo is so important to the article that its absence would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the subject. (See Non-free content criterion no. 8.) I'm working on some articles about some historical British people who were captured at a particular house in Derbyshire and hanged at a bridge nearby. I have found images on the web, both of the rather famous house and of the bridge. I haven't used them. (The baser side of me would love to, as it would make "MY" articles look nicer, but it would be contrary to our mission of building a free encyclopaedia with content that can be used, reused, modified, redistributed, and sold by anyone — and frankly, our mission is more important than my wishes to have an article I created looking "nicer"!) At the moment, it would be inconvenient for me to take a train to Derbyshire to take photos, but I may do it some time. However, even if I lived so far away as to make that impossible, I still couldn't use those web images, because it's not impossible for some Wikipedian to take those pictures, and, in the absence of such pictures, the articles are still comprehensible. I take your point about there being more than one Jack Turner, but feel that naming the article Jack Turner (writer), and using {{otherpeople2|Jack Turner}} to link to Jack Turner gives adequate explanation that it's that particular Jack Turner. According to our policy, not only can we not use non-free images if free images are or could reasonably be made available; we also can't use them if the purpose that they serve could also be served by text. After all, if someone said to you, "Which Jack Turner is that?", you'd presumably answer "The writer", not "The one with short brown hair". I created two articles about two different people called Richard Simpson, but didn't use images in either, because I couldn't find any free ones. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Non-free content and Resolution:Licensing policy, and especially Non-free content criterion no. 9. Also, see here, where Jimbo argues that with the exception of historically critical images such as Elian Gonzales and the, we are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even wikipedia-only photo. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you so much for your detailed and well referenced response. :-) It makes a whole lot more sense to me now. It sounds like the best thing to do is to try to contact Jack Turner through his publisher and ask him (or his wife) to contribute a photo using one of Wikipedia's standard release letter. After that, it's up to him I guess. Thanks again for your patience. Have a great rest of your week! --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for understanding and for taking it so well. In my experience, people who work with image cleanup tend to get a lot of abuse (though it hasn't happened to me yet!), so it's very refreshing to see people being so reasonable when an article they're working on is slightly "spoiled". It would be great if you could get Jack Turner to contribute an image. When I started working on the Gillian McKeith article, there was a non-free image of McKeith, and the administrator SlimVirgin said we couldn't use a non-free image of a living person. But she took the trouble to write to McKeith's agent, and got a free image by return. It's always worth trying. And enjoy the rest of your week too. :-) ElinorD (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Another question Hi, Abu. The information on Image:Footscray-station-overpass.jpg seems to be contradictory. Used with permission, and public domain. What should I do? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I do ifd on these cases. --Abu badali (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I've done that. Now, can you give me some advice on what I should do about the following two images, please? Image:Heighho.JPG Dubious looking rationale, particularly "purpose of use"! Also, I wonder about WP:NFCC#8 Image:Underthesea.JPG Can that really be GFDL, when it reproduces what would seem to be copyrighted images? Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC) A agree in both cases. I don't think that something with a prominent Disney's logo can be considered "free". And for the fair use claim, I don't see how an image of the tape helps in the understanding of a article that is pretty much a list of songs. I would point this concerns in an ifd nomination. --Abu badali (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Image:Jackrack.jpg Could you please explain your deletion of Image:Jackrack.jpg? The fact that it was replaceable was disputed. I don't do much image related work, but I was under the impression that disputes should be resolved before images are deleted. --Tango 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC) The image was tagged in a category to be speedy deleted on or after 5 August, as having its fair use rationale disputed. The {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag gave as justification "While an alternative could be created, it would not be as good. A picture of the rack on his chest gives context. A load of blocks of different colours made in Photoshop doesn't. The free image would not be equivalent, so this image should not be blindly deleted." We never use unfree images just on the grounds that a free equivalent, which could be created "would not be as good". Even if we did allow fair use when the only free equivalent was of lower quality, we'd still have to ask why it's so essential to have the image at all. Sure, it enhances the article; it makes it look better. But that's not enough, according to Criterion no. 8 of the policy, which states that to justify the use of a non-free image, its absence would have to be detrimental to readers' understanding of the subject. I've just reread the relevant section, from which the image was removed, and I don't see that it's in any way difficult to understand, or even that the image itself was being discussed. Please take a look also at Wikipedia:Non-free content and Resolution:Licensing policy. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks Must be Troll Discount Day or something around here - thanks for your quick action. FYI, 66.99.2.151 has also edited as 66.99.2.84, so I'm guessing the whole range of 66.99.2.XX IPs are her/him. They belong to Illinois Century Network, so if he ramps up his accusations we may wish to report him to his provider. Premature now, IMO. Silly troll doesn't bother me, but if he starts harassing others and / or starts making legal threats, this info may come in handy so I post it here. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) The summer break is over...kids are back in school in most states in the U.S. So vandalism will likely see an upswing unitl the holiday season.--MONGO 18:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) But... that's not a school IP. :-( KillerChihuahua?!? 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Oops.--MONGO 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Userbox deletion Hi - I was wondering why you deleted a userbox design in my user space (diff)? I hadn't noticed the image it used has been deleted from commons, but it seems a little impolite to unilaterally remove the entire userbox from one of my sub-pages. Maybe a note that the image had gone would have sufficed? Regards, EyeSereneTALK 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) The image wasn't deleted from commons; it was deleted from English Wikipedia, as lacking a source, and had been in a category for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#I4 for seven days. It was a violation of our policy for you ever to have had it in your userspace at any stage, as the image was never tagged as being freely licensed. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Non-free content and Resolution:Licensing policy, and especially Non-free content criterion no. 9. When I am deleting unfree images, I always take the trouble to remove the traces of the deleted image from the pages where it appears, as a deleted image makes a page look quite ugly. A deleted image in a userbox makes the page look hideous. Your page looked like this when I had deleted the image. As a courtesy to you, I did not want to leave it looking like that. I looked carefully at the page, to decide on the best way of cleaning up after my image deletion. You had four consecutive userboxes with exactly the same wording, though each had a different flag (three of which were freely-licensed images, and one of which was the unfree image that I had deleted): This user believes we can stand on our own. This user believes we can stand on our own. This user believes we can stand on our own. This user believes we can stand on our own. Since you had already said three times that you believed we could stand on your own, I felt that it would be superfluous to say it again, without an image. So, I felt that deleting the box was a better option, while, of course, it left you free to replace the box once you had found a free image. I'm sorry that you didn't like my temporary solution, but I fail to see how it could possibly be impolite to make a good faith effort to leave your page looking less hideous looking than it had been immediately after my deletion of the image, and less in violation of our policy than it had been just before that. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the reply! I hadn't actually noticed the image was in WP, not Commons (I think I must have tracked it down from the Northern Ireland article and assumed it was ok). I would have preferred the userbox left as it was, because then I could just copy/paste a new image in, but I do appreciate your explanation and good faith in tidying up the page ;) There are four states in the UK, hence four userboxes... although I was always a little dubious about the NI one due to the difficulty of finding a single non-political flag/symbol for the province. Regardless, thanks again for taking the time to explain. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you. I probably should have left you a note. I have done that in the past, with other users, and still do it sometimes. But, since becoming an administrator, I have been deleting dozens of improperly-licensed images a day — sometimes well over a hundred, and I find that there is often such a huge backlog of images waiting to be deleted that I want to be as efficient as possible. It seems to work better to write a long explanation every time someone queries it (perhaps once every hundred images) than to write a short one every single time I remove an image, regardless of whether or not it's likely to be queried. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC) I can understand the logic of that ;) You deserve credit for taking on a rather tedious and under-appreciated task, but it's people like you that keep this incredible project working. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for understanding, and for your kind words. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Cheers That problem happens all too often here, i've seen many good editors go down like that. Meateater 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Hopefully, everything has been sorted out now, and the problem won't recur. ElinorD (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)