User talk:Geni/archive 5

Image:NaomiCampbellMC.png

Hi, have a look at the new image of this naomi-article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Future (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Leftovers Image Deletion

Geni, could you please explain why the image was deleted from the (Fucken) Leftovers page. I have sought and been granted the right to use this (and any other image or text from the source) by the copyright owner: rich@dropkick.com.au

This information was included with the image upload.

Marc Austin-Zande 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Ahh, seek and ye shall find! I understand now and am about to rectify - sorry. Marc Austin-Zande 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Only Magazine and Music Waste Logos

Our logos were deleted without reason. We have all rights to these images and would like to know why they were deleted. Only (magazine), Music waste

They were deleted because they were released under a non comcercial use only lisence which is not considered free enough for wikipedia.Geni 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I mis-categorized it then. I will ammebnd this issue. Thanks.

Corral

What are you doing with my Corral images? Take look before you do it next time:

http://www.dibam.cl/subdirec_museos/msf_niebla/home.asp (Dentren 14:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)) no life?

Incorrect deletion of JAS Jet Air Service, a freight forwarder

This article was incorrectly deleted for copyright violation. The allegded violation was of content from www.jas.com/company. The content on that page is owned by JAS and was written by JAS for JAS. Please un-delete this article.

Jet Air Service, a freight forwarder on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jet Air Service, a freight forwarder. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

I have added an undelete request. This article was incorrectly deleted for copyright violation. The allegded violation was of content from www.jas.com/company. The content on that page is owned by JAS and was written by JAS for JAS. Please un-delete this article.

Why are you deleting my article?

Geni, Why do you keep taking down my article on No Parking Web Comic? You keep siting importance, but I have seen many articles about less on wikipedia. Plus, what is not important to you doesn't mean it isn't important to others. You asked me to site another source and I found one on comixpedia. As far as I can see you don't seem to have a valid reason to delete this article. Please tell me why. Sandpile 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Sandpile

Taking care when deleting images

Geni, If you'd have looked at my user status, before wily nilly deleting that logo, you'd know that it's fine to use. Moreover, ALL company logos are defined as:

Licensing

Please revert that image or at least take more care in future. newspaperman 13:21, 16 November 2006 (KST)

Deletion of images and content

I believe I am in a similar position as many other commenting persons on this page, with the addition that I followed the instructions shown after I had identified the picture for use on wiki only. Those instructions state that the image will be deleted unless a statement of license grant is made and the copyright holder is identified.. Clearly this was intended to allow for more flexibility than you are allowing wiki posters to exercise. Regardless, you proceeded to delete the image, and I can see why (because of your apparent narrow interpretation of license grants) from your response to the person above.

I have to say, that it makes no sense to limit wiki to GFDL images only. The argument to enable reuse of content rings hollow, as it would not be very difficult to add a mechanism for reusers (of which I yet have to see any) to determine what the license grant is, and act accordingly. Any operation that might violate fair use would have to do so anyway, regardless of your deletions or markings. I have taken this topic up in the past, pointing out that by enforcing ideologically driven license principles, those "editors" deleting content from wiki are in fact merely greatly limiting who posts, and what type of information is posted, rather than making wiki more useful. For example, this will drive content into specialized areas where noone has any reason to disagree with the data, and to thinly veiled marketing materials, as those postings are made by people who are paid to keep coming back even if their postings are deleted periodically.

Rather than tap yourself on your back for thousands of edits, I believe you should be concerned about how much data carnage you might have caused by deleting content posted by willing contributors. Have you ever asked yourself how many will come back to post more if their work has been deleted in the past?

May I suggest that due to the inconsistency between your interpretation of image license requirements, and the instructions shown to someone uploading images, that you review the same, and either update the instructions, or change your editing habits. Aki Korhonen 10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I added a response to yours on my talk page. For brevity I won't copy it here. Aki Korhonen 20:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Brucker

Geni, why do you keep deleting the photo of Roger Brucker and Robert Murray from the article about Mr. Brucker? There is no copyright issue, and it is relevant to the article.

The Image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" (Ie wikipedia only) which is not free enough to allow it to be used on wikipedia.Geni 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If permission is granted for the image to be used on "Wikipedia only," why is it not okay for it be used on Wikipedia? That doesn't make sense. Please explain what more is needed, and I will obtain the necessary permission. Roger Brucker owns the copyright of that image. Thanks.

wikipedia only means reusers can't use it. Images need to be under the GFDL or under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License (idealy both) which allow reuse.Geni 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, as I am still learning the system, but what is the point of there being a "Wikipedia only" option in the "licensing" drop-down box, if Wikipedia cannot then use the image? When I get time, I will modify the licensing designation to meet your requirements, but I do not understand the rationale.

Because there are people who will lie to get an image on wikipedia so we would rather give them an opertunity to be truthful.Geni 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect, but your answer still does not make sense. I have permission from the copyright owner of the photograph in question, to post it on Wikipedia. Yet, you are telling me that I am not allowed to post it on Wikipedia, even though one of the licensing options provided by Wikipedia, itself, seems to allow for photos to be posted on Wikipedia only. I don't know what you mean, when you say "we would rather give them an opportunity to be truthful." Ultimately, you cannot possibly know if someone is being truthful regarding copyright ownership, unless the actual owner of a copyrighted image complains. Please tell me EXACTLY what I need to do to avoid having you delete this image. I will follow your instructions. (I thought I was following Wikipedia's instructions, already.) Thank you.

You need to get the person who owns the copyright to release the image under the GFDL (see here) or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike ( see here.Geni 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

University of Limerick Computer Society

I do not understand why this page was deleted, it seems to have been deleted because of A7 (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content).

What defines a remarkable person? Members of the Computer Society include Mel Gorman (Author of Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager Amazon Listing - Barnes&Noble Listing - Mels Skynet Homepage ) and Caolan McNamara ( Caolans Skynet Homepage - worked on mswordview/libwv a converter/import library for MSWord documents as used by Abiword).

Alan Cox has previously come to talk to us - Info on the talk and a recording and there is a link to Skynet from Alans Wikipedia Page. This is the recording of the talk Alan gave, recorded by Gareth Eason (bigbro).

Upcoming talks shall be given by the likes of Richard Stallman, Val Henson, Robert Chassell, Martin Krafft and Ciarán O'Riordan to name but a few. These shall be recorded by Lug Radio. More information can be found here

Last edit: tyRion 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh... this surely should have gone through AFD rather than unilateral action. Nevermind that it should have been kept (Wikipedia has articles on far more trivial subjects) or at worst merged with University of Limerick or a new University of Limerick student societies article.

zoney ♣ talk 15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I could only act on what was in the article at the time and non of this was mentioned further more past presendence suggests that student societies are not normaly considered notible.Geni 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you undelete and list for AfD if you still feel it should be deleted. Thanks. zoney ♣ talk 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration committee notice

IMO, MediaWiki:Watchdetails is only suitable for text describing the watchlist. Any messages regarding site-wide Wikipedia activities, such as the announcement for elections to the Arbitration Committee, belong in MediaWiki:Sitenotice. --  Denelson83  00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then, why don't we put it on a more visible page? I mean, not everybody even has a watchlist. --  Denelson83  00:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I'm curious why you didn't put a note about {{unblock}} in your 3RR boilerplate? Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you still use the boilerplate, have you considered adding a note about it? ---J.S (t|c) 00:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:216.162.22.136

Geni, thanks for the quick action against 216.162.22.136. I have grown tired of his/her vandalism to many WikiProject Congress articles. Hopefully we will have taught the little punk a lesson! Cheers! --Daysleeper47 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Geni! The Stockholm city council doesn't claim any copyright for Image:Beckomberga-hospital.jpg - a promotional photo taken in the mid 1930s. This is mainly because the proprietor lost his copyright according to pre 1995 Swedish copyright law (Lag (1960:730) om rätt till fotografisk bild) after 25 years - accound 1960. According to the new stricter copyright act of 1995, the proprietor of a photo may not reclaim a copyright that is lost accoring to the pre 1995 legislation unless the image has a high artistic value. I.e. Swedish photos taken before Januay 1969 doesn't have copyright unless the photo does have high artistic value. I don't know how to tag the image correctly. Maybe you can help me finding an appropritate tag? regards, Odengatan 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

PD-Sweden

I'll use this tag: template:PD-Sweden Odengatan 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryugyong Hotel

HI.

The image of Ryugyong Hotel is ok.

it is taken from http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/

Computer Security

What are your objections to the Computer Security edits I made? Luis F. Gonzalez 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I made two edits. One with which wikified certain terms. The last which added the graphic. Both were reverted. The picture was posted next to the (POV) humorous quote from Eugene H. Spafford:

 "[T]he only truly secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards - and even then I have my doubts."

So the logic is no fair-use pictures? If I get the author to release to the Public domain? Is that then OK? Sorry sbout benig curt, at work.

Luis F. Gonzalez 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a POV issue about the appropriateness of humor which ends up under "arbitration". Amen Luis F. Gonzalez 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Boxing Images

Geni, as you have seen I uploaded a number of images for various Irish boxers last night. These images were saved from irish-boxing.com and I have the permission of Tomas Rohan the owner of the site to use them. Also he stated that they are promotional shoots of the fighters. I was under the impression that if they we promotional images and I got the permission of the website owners then you were aloud use them on wiki, however, a number of the photos have been deleted.

Do you know what i am doing wrong or what tags I should be using. regards Vintagekits 13:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Owenpuma.jpg

Can I ask why you don't believe the speedy criteria apply? The picture is not a promophoto as it is tagged. It is apparently part of an advetr for puma, the article in which it is used doesn't even mention the person appearing in adverts for puma let alone provide critical commentary for which use of the image would be anything more than decorative. It fails our fair use criteria in several ways. --pgk 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Failing our fair use criteria is not a speedy delete criteria? How do you square that with criteria I7 (the one I tagged it with and you removed) which states "Invalid fair-use claim. Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a template:logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.".

Quite clearly that image fails on (a) it's wrongly tagged, it isn't a template:promophoto (though I can see an argument that it isn't clearly invalid, though those arguments seem to rely on not knowing what a promophoto is in this context) and (b) It fails any part of our fair use crtieria. That is it fulfils the speedy deletion criteria.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your comment concerning speedy deletion being busy, if you think we should ignore copyright issues when we are busy, or reduce our speedy deletion criteria to not include such issues then perhaps you should propose that as a change to the speedy deletion process. --pgk 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree. Rhe category's scope if quite clear and this image falls into that with ease, failing our fair use guidlines on multple counts and being incorrectly tagged. The speedy deletion policy says nothing of this 24 hours after upload that you assert, indeed if the 24 hours were relevant the explicit wording of "after 13 July 2006" would be totally redundant as by nature anything upload now having to be tagged within 24 hours would be after that date. --pgk 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will notidy the uploader very explicitly and retag in 48 hours. As for your asking me to prove a negative I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh at that for being such a ridiculous proposition. But regardless as I am sure you full well know the policy places the onus on the uploader to demonstrate the claim of fair use, not others to disprove it. --pgk 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brad Ellsworth Image

Can I ask why you removed the Brad Ellsworth image from his article? It was the image that was release to the media and other sources, same as his opponent John Hostetler. It qualifies for fair use.--Twintone 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the image for John Hostettler? It's the same deal, why is that one ok?--Twintone 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Gurdon Saltonstall Hubbard

I just noticed that you deleted Gurdon Saltonstall Hubbard's entry a few weeks ago. Why did you delete it? Shsilver 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the original article (if I recall correctly), I'm offended by your comment that the original article was plagiarized. I'd also have suggested airing your concerns with tags and on the talk page before deleting it. Shsilver 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Wood photo

Hi Geni, you deleted a pic of Sharon Wood (mountain climber) on her bio pag - you're concerned it's rights protected. As I said in the notes, I copied it from Sharon's company website (sharonwood.net) with her permission. What more do I need to do? Thanks for listening. Trevor McConnell (TrevorMcC) trevor@scoutcommunications.com

American Hotrod

Hi, could you tell me why the American Hotrod images were removed please ?

Thanks

Black Mesa

Hello there, can I ask why you've deleted the images on Black Mesa Research Facility? It would have been polite to have initiated a discussion on the talk page instead of just wiping them out. I notice you've had a lot of complaints about image deletion; why are you doing so without conferring with others? Rusty2005 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well surely all images are just for "decoration", so in that case why have any images at all on this site? These images aren't copyright violation, they fall within the guidelines as computer screenshots. I spent a lot of time getting those images, they fall within the guidelines, and I don't like someone coming along and wiping them out without bothering to even leave a message on the talk page. What kind of impression is that giving? That no matter how hard someone works to improve a page, an administrator has the power to wipe out the work in a second, just because they don't like it. That's not a very good message, is it? No other administrator has complained about the images so why are you suddenly butchering the page? And yes, I like to sleep from time to time too, but that doesn't mean I go around shredding pages without consulting anyone. Rusty2005 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I must say I'm not impressed with your reasoning and I think you are overstepping administrator boundaries. You don't even bother to explain your actions, you just direct people to endless pages of administrative jargon. I believe that these images fall within the boundaries and I'm sorry to say I'm lodging a complaint about your actions. I don't think you're making a useful contribution to this page, and I'm not the only person to have complained about your image-deletion and total lack of consultation. I'm really not happy with this and I think you might be overstepping your mark. Rusty2005 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A tad curious

How in this deletion, did you clear it when it was linked? It certainly would have shown in 'what links here'. (See: {{1632 covers}} history) Don't know why someone uploaded another image and created the orphan, but breaking the template link should have been checked into at the very least! Was this done by BOT or some such? Cheers // FrankB 05:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

re: [edit] Image:163xN03-1634- The Galileo Affair-cover-0743488156.jpg

"Fair use" images should not be in the template namespace in any case so I would have ignored that.Geni 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabartus"

On re-read, that is a very bad answer... breaking a template is not a good idea— they are far too fragile as it is. In this case, the books have multiple covers by release type: e-book, HC, PB usually all differ. So the template keeps them straight in case (like this) someone deletes one from an article favoring one over the other. The plan is to include them all in a matured article--this was in a stub, which hasn't the physical length for several yet unless and until someone gets to adding longer content. (The series is averaging about three per year, so the backlog is increasing, I fear!) The point is you should have looked at links. ttfn // FrankB 14:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't quite follow the implied logic in your answer.
   If you checked what links here, any link would and should have been investigated... hopefully you are doing that with any and all deletions diligently. In this case, seeing the other project links in the series, you should have had a lightbulb suggesting you generate an inquiry message to the uploader or check the novel article itself (I believe there was a direct back link in the image file, if not, I slipped up on that one).
   I'd thought all that was part of the Admins guidelines (the what links here part, not the maturity, and courteous communication), and is certainly a professional complete and logical way to exercise your powers—I don't have the time to do all that, which is one reason I wouldn't put myself up for admin—the minutia and vexations of the job are very appreciated by me, and one I'm ill suited to doing, so don't think this is a complaint as it is really applause. You all don't get paid enough.
   In this case, someone uploaded and supplanted the image, so the only break was in the template... but in an investigation, seeing it was a book cover, I'd hope the one anomaly would have lead to see the image was dupped and you would have then also cleared the redlink in the template you were about to generate.
   Anyhow, be that as it may, I'd suggest you check for links and clear those before deleting anything. If you don't, you just generate a problem for someone else which is hardly meets professional grade job quality standards. Give it some thought. Best regards // FrankB 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

You keep deleting some images. Can we hold on this until tomorrow evening when if comes off the main page and then discuss it? We are already up to 80 edits this evening and most are vandalism. I'm sure you have a valid point, but it is getting lost at the moment. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NCSA logo

Geni,

I am new to this editting process and to wikipedia, so your deletion of my NCSA logo may well be justified. However, I handle all the paper copyright and image permission forms in my office and I do indeed have the right to post this image. I would appreciate any advice you have on the proper way to attribute my NCSA logo, and for the time being, I will repost the one I put up previously.

Thank you.

MonALISA Article

I don't understand what was the problem with this article. It was the text from the home page site. It wasn't a problem with the copyright. Wouldn't be nice to ask before deleting?

Pharaoh and Cleopatra

Please stop deleting all the structure pictures from this article. A great deal of time was spent uploading them and such a mass deletion should be discussed first. There is also a chance that the article will be split into sub-articles with some of the images spread around. -Husnock 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am notifying that you have exceed WP:3RR as you haven't been previous;y warned about this for this article I intend to restor the article to its previous from please discuss the matter on the talk page. Gnangarra 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that was Cyde... not me...

But seriously, it's clearly marked as such, what is the harm -- Tawker 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

image of Peru State College

Why was the image I uploaded for PSC deleted? What do I need to do to have an image or logo on the page? email

Unsolicited Compliment from Me

Yo, we've never bumped into each other before. I was reading a debate that I found interesting, in which you said, "I reserve the right to call anyone dude." That's fuckin hilarious, as well as damn commendable, because I say the same thing all the time. That's all I got, have a good one. --Tractorkingsfan 14:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't think that was vandalism just because it contains swearing and relates to nothing important. --Tractorkingsfan 14:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not quite sure which incerdent you are talking about there.Geni 14:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't even matter, it was a couple of months ago, but it was Everyking being desysopped, you defended him/her, or at least pointed out some problems with what people were saying, quite admirably. Props. --Tractorkingsfan 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rivka Golani photo deletion

Any particular reason why you deleted the Rivka Golani image? I'm not saying it was right or wrong to do so, but you just deleted it without explanation. Paradiso 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NYC photo

Why did you deleted NYC Marathon leading photo?201.37.247.93 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

because it was listed as a replaceable fair use image for more than 7 days.Geni 12:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ray Childress

I own the photo, so I'm pretty sure it's OK to use. I would like to retain the rights to it, however. Again, I'm new to Wikipedia but I don't understand why you would go around erasing images just because you THINK they might not be kosher. Why not just ask me? Are you employed by wikipedia? Is it your job to erase photos? If so, I apologize.

Image:WillMak050389Picture.PNG

I just thought I would ask, since your sockpuppet removed it from my page, this image is a picture of me taken by a studio, so it is probably under their copyright, but I think it is fair use to use it on my user page because it is a picture of me. I know fair use ins't allowed on user pages, but since it is describing the page in question I think it should be allowed. What are your thoughts on this? --WillMak050389 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks for that. I will revert the pic to an earlier version that I took and remove the tag. --WillMak050389 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

South Philly Screwjob

Hmmm, hey. I'm alright with you deleting that paragraph; I know you're contibuting, and probably have a great reason for it, but could I please know why it was hopeless?

• Kay, thanks dude!

Gallery of Penguin Classics

You have flagged the above article for deletion - thinking about it, I agree. GiantSnowman (Wednesday, 2006-11-22 T 16:42 UTC)

Another vague deletion of an image!

That photo of Kadir Has University is NOT copyrighted. I couldn't get the photo in a proper form but why did you choose to delete it rather than to "correct" it? --213.238.140.157 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The image was listed as licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "for use on wikipedia only". I can't second guess such lisences.Geni 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

While I don't object to the deletion of Template:Infobox Australian Town, I think you should pay attention to the criteria. Neither the nomination for deletion nor your reason for deletion corresponded to the criteria.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Queen Sabika

Well...fortunately...the copyright status of all images i have uploaded have been corrected...rather than deleting...maybe try correcting?

the other images i have uploaded in the past have had their copyright statuses corrected by other users...the options given to me when uploading photos are not as numerous as those that are used on wikipedia...there was a former copyright on a picture that said "depicting a notable individual" however i found no such option under liscensing...the picture of the Queen of Bahrain was found on this website http://www.ambahrein-france.com/index_files/Main%20Frame.htm i dont know what to use as the copyright option

Its an image of candy darling from her book My Face for the World to See...what liscensing would you give that...as i said earlier the options given to me when uploading photos are not as numerous as those that are used on wikipedia

Hey Geni...im really sick so im off to bed...i would greatly appreciate it if you would correct the copyright status on the picture of Queen Sabika take care and thanks for everything (Lashonda 02:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)) Hey Gen...just got ur last message...well candy darling is dead...so i guess you could just change that to fair use...about the Queen's pic...i dont really know...maybe there is an official portrait out there...well i can tell you that i have seen several pix of notable ppl that arent dead and that arent publicity shots used...i wonder what their liscences are...anyway...as i said im off to bed...I HAVENT EATEN ANYTHING ALL DAY...i hate being sick...and i cant take any meds cuz i havent eaten :( anyway ttyl (Lashonda 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

you deleted sound masking website,Please explain why?

Request for mediation in image tagging dispute

Geni, you've been suggested as a mediator in a dispute involving a large number of images uploaded by a particular user. For relevant content, please see (in chronological order):

1. Image_talk:Corpus_Christi,_Texas_flag.svg
2. Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive62#Input_on_copyright_issue_requested
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Durin_out_of_control_.28edit_stalking.2Funrealistic_copyright_requests.29

Also see related pages:

1. User:Durin/Husnock images
2. User:Husnock/Durinconcerns

User:Zscout370 has accepted the role of mediator, but has indicated a time limitation. He may be able to assist with the review, but you may have more time available than he to conduct the mediation. In particular, I'd like to see the work that has been done at User:Durin/Husnock images reviewed on a case by case basis to determine appropriate actions to take with respect to the images in question. Please let me know if you'd like to step in as a mediator in this. Thanks, --Durin 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

statement

Sorry about that, I am getting to it now - I have a long watchlist. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting photo?

Why did you delete the photo from Gertrude Thanhouser biography that I created last night? This image comes from our family photo collection? This makes no sense and makes contributing to Wikipedia a frustrating exercise.

Ned Thanhouser, grandson of Gertrude Homan Thanhouser

Deleting content and photo?

Why did you delete Srgjan Kerim biography on November 10th? It is original, it is published at the official Ministry of Foreign Affaires web site([1])under Candidacy for President of GA of UN or you can find it at [2]. As I am the administrator of the official web site, I tought that it will be good idea to publish it on wikipedia. I hope you will understand. What else do yo need as a proof that the content is correct? Can you publish it for me please? Thank you, Martaat 08:59, 30 November 2006

Kelly Martin

Please do not edit my section at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Kelly Martin If it needs editing I will do it. If it makes uncomfortable reading, then that is because there are issues which need to be addressed. Thank you. Giano 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page, this is obviously going to escelate into a full scale Wiki-fight so it may as well all be together Giano 08:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Geni, I would like to thank you for your efforts to enforce guidelines intended to maintain civility on the candidate question pages. I hope that doing so does not prove to be too much of a burden for you, and encourage you to recruit others to the task if you feel the situation warrants it. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Frightened people [3] Is her case so feeble it can't stand scrutiny? Giano 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

vote pages

There are now two sets of vote pages (including all the subpages for each candidate). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/vote vs. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote (note capitalization). I'll let you and Thebainer work it out :). NoSeptember 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rediredted the small v page and removed the duplicates. should be clear now. would suggest unprotecting the voteing pages sometime before voteing starts to be on the safe side.Geni 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, must have missed those other pages, I didn't think of checking at the lowercase title. Noone else noticed that you'd started some either. Anyway, looks like it's all sorted out now. 00:00 UTC is 11:00 where I am, so I'll certainly be online to unprotect all the pages for the start of the election, and probably to protect them all at the end. --bainer (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Vote page

I was looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote and I noticed that there is a support/vote link at the bottom of each statment, but no link to the questions pages. The questions link is on the support/vote pages, but I was wondering whether the questions links should be on the main vote page as well. Carcharoth 10:50 (UTC) 3 December 2006 (not logged in)

Does it apply to Cyde?

Geni, in view of your exhortation to Giano to "keep the question page for questions"[4], I cordially invite you to remove Cyde's latest attack on Geogre, inventively placed on Paul August's page and put in the form of a question to Paul. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, it is a valid question. If he still thinks Geogre is one of the two best candidates, then I question his judgement, and have a right to know his reponse to help me figure out if I want to change my vote. As for keeping integrity of elections ... it's simply not right to repeatedly remove other users' questions. Paul August can choose not to answer if he wishes, but that choice sure as hell isn't going to be made by Giano or Ghirlandajo. --Cyde Weys 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I used to think you a decent guy, you're making me ashamed of you. You insist on your "right" to have this so-called question on the questions page, and are willing to edit war over it (while moralizing about others doing the same?) Bishonen | talk 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

It's kind of sad that you're throwing such rhetoric around me how I "used to be a decent guy" but now I'm just "making you ashamed". All I'm doing is asking a question about a statement made inside of a candidate statement; that is exactly the point of these question/answer pages. Let me make a real world parallel so you can figure this out: I happen to severely dislike GWB and would never vote for any candidate who had endorsed him. Do I not have a right to ask candidates to confirm who they have endorsed in light of new evidence? --Cyde Weys 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Geni, please don't undo other admins' actions when you can see they're online and dealing with the situation. The intent of the question is to cause trouble. Please just let it be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Geni, you were thanked above for helping to maintain civility, but now that it involves the other "side," you're helping to maintain incivility, which is disappointing. I'm taking admin action in relation to that page because of the reverting, and I'd appreciate it if you would just let the situation be, so that tempers die down a little. We're not children; it should be possible to get through an election without snide remarks and people insulting each other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've unprotected and reverted again. I won't continue to fight with you, but I'm noting here that your behavior is disappointing, and coming from someone who recently saw fit to nominate himself for bureaucrat is actually a disgrace. I hope the question and answer are worth the damage you've just done to yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be pompous and holier-than-thou. You're upholding trolling and childishness, and you're undoing admin actions without prior discussion, which implies you think you know better than anyone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

sitenotice for fair use

Can you clarify your position on this.A simple "i will revert it", means nothing.--Zigzag8 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage date template

Hey. The image you used to replace the wikipedia logo for this template is pretty small, too small actually, it's so small it's impossible to tell what it actually is, and it doesn't fit in very well with the template, is it possible there's another image that could be used in this case? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what could replace it either, the Wikipedia logo was doing good, but if we can't use it then we can't use it... hmmm. The problem with this pic is that it just looks like a giant white blob, maybe we can try and create a featured article logo or something, I just suck at photoshop. Any ideas? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles with redirects . If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Hu12 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

videosift

Why was the image removed? You leave no explanation and simply removed the image for the logo? --Farhadz 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

db-unksource

Hi Geni. Do you know of any good uses for {{db-unksource}}? I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#db-unksource and db-unfree templates. Best ×Meegs 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jodi Huisentruit Entry Deletion?!?

Geni can you please provide a detailed explanation as to why you deleted the ENTIRE Jodi Huisentruit file? I don't see why the entire file needed to be removed. The case generated a lot of interest in the last two weeks in the midwest United States. The addition to the file today included information that is already known to the public.

Nomination for Deletion

This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zestha&curid=8343716&diff=93157280&oldid=93131315) Zestha will be nominated for deletion as soon as possible. Bearly541 08:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. I will not "edit" my sig. I know users who have longer sigs than mine. It's very special to me. BTW, the AfD is located here. Bearly541 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?Bearly541 09:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete this page, and don't worry about my siggy! Bearly541 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mathew Fletcher

I had already proded this article the other day and this afternoon the prod was removed by another user. The next thing now should be a WP:AFD instead of another prod, I believe. Just an FYI. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion wouldn't work, though, since it has been more than 24 hours since created. But, according to WP:PROD, it shouldn't be PRODed again, if should just be send to WP:AFD. For this reason, I am going to remove the prod, but feel free to nominate it for deletion. I would surely vote for deletion, but I was going to give the user a chance to provided sources like he mentioned at Talk:Mathew Fletcher. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geni

I tagged an image for speedy deletion as having no source data; you then reverted it using rollback, which you know is solely for reverting vandalism. So, as you didn't provide a reason, why the revert? Proto::► 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but don't use rollback, it's not what it's for - manually revert and put something like that in the edit summary next time. Proto::► 16:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vinnie Richards images

Apparently you're an admin. -- don't you think that gives you a little more responsibility to explain yourself when you do something like deleting these images? For instance: *why* are you deleting them with no warning or no explanations? Hayford Peirce 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a guideline

... justifying this truncation? Thanks. // FrankB 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See the instructions at the top of the voteing page: "Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes. An uninvolved party may move long comments to the talk page. Voters may ask questions of the candidate at any time at their questions page."Geni 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh! Sorry. I generally stay out of wikipolitics and sometimes move too quickly, I guess. Thanks! Tanks twice for the speed! // FrankB 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Xdup, from Thebainer

perhaps you two could split this up?

Hi! this says you hold some of the keys to the kingdom. I was just purusing candidate statements and wanted to segue into a voting page, but there is no link. Twould be good if there was! // FrankB 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I was coming in through the backdoor here... still seems worth doing. // FrankB 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I got there, so thought I owed you the above clarification. Guess I wasn't clear enough, clarifying. How about a compromise -- to wit, a notice saying that page's contents have now been superceded or somesuch by the vote page with link. I have no reason to insist on individual links, only that I'm pointing out that I went astray because the candidates comments page has such a specifically large link and went there first. I'm male, so went for BIG. <g> Cheers. Whatever you decide, I suspect I'm not the only one going down that path first! Thanks all around. // FrankB 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Ron Tugnutt File:Rontugnutt.jpg.

The picture I uploaded for Ron Tugnutt was his official photograph that is used for the public to identify him. Every single player in the National Hockey League takes these pictures every year. It is not copyrighted, it is meant to be used to represent him. Maybe I tagged it with the wrong thing I'm not really sure, but this is a free use image. I don't get how it can be deleted. The same types of pictures are found currently on other Wiki pages such as Dominik Hasek The photo was also uploaded months ago so I don't get how it could be deleted now. What happened to that one week thing. Jordoe, November 22, 2006 - 5:43PM

Still waiting for a response? Jordoe, December 13, 2006 - 5:21pm

I answered at User_talk:Jordoe.Geni 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, on any website that represents Ron Tugnutt, whether it be TSN Player Profile, NHL.com's player information, Dallas Stars former roster lists, The Score.Ca's player profile, almost every website that contains biographical information on Ron Tugnutt uses this picture. These pictures are taken for public use, not under copyright. I shouldn't have to prove this, you are the one creating a problem, you should be the one proving me wrong with evidence before deleting my picture. Jordoe, December 13, 2006 - 7:44PM

It is quite hard under US law for someone who isn't a federal goverment employee to take a picture that isn't under copyright. They could then release it under a free lisence but we would need evidence that that had happened.Geni 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Than it must be under a free license. Why is Tugnutt the only goaltender page to have his picture deleted. Dominik Hasek has a picture on his page, the same kind, the free license one or what not. I had a copyright tag on the picture already too, which again makes me wonder why it got deleted. It wasn't just anyone who took this picture either. As part of NHLPA agreement, every player in the National Hockey League must be photographed each year. This photograph is then their official photo used to represent them.

The Dominik Hasek image appears to have been deleted. There is no reason to think that any image must be under a free lisence until we know it's source and the details of any lisence it may be released under.Geni 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the official website where you will find not only Tugnutt's but every player in the NHL's picture. http://www.nhl.com/players/8451837.html

And here's their license agreement thing. "4) Any photograph on this website posted on a media web site or otherwise transmitted online may be used only for biographical, news and editorial coverage of the player and not for any commercial, advertising or promotional purpose.

wikipedia does not view lisences that do not allow commercial use to be free. Wikipedia would also have problems with limits on offline use.Geni 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Other problems would be the other limits on types of use. Derivative works are likely total outlawed (in fact the lisence lacks clarity full stop).Geni 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well its a wonder Wiki gets any pictures with all these politics. This is insane. I'm sure Ron Tugnutt has a problem with his picture being put on this website to represent him. Yeah he's probably really concerned about that, he might even sue. Give me a break.

It does help that pictures produced by the US federal goverment and it's agnecies are PD. We also havea lot of wikipedians takeing their own photos. In any case the no comercial use clause is legaly awful and depending on how it is interpreted might mean that wikipedia is unable to sell t-shirts with the wikipedia logo on them.Geni 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of My Screen Recorder Pro

May I ask why this page was deleted, but not pages about many other software packages. For one random example, the FTP client Total Commander doesn't assert special significance either.

quite a few pages link to Total Commander which suggests it has some level of notability however the main reason was that someone noticed "My Screen Recorder Pro"Geni 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Ilena

I noticed that in July you blocked Ilena for a week for "spam ,extream POV pushing, mass reverting". Would you care too look at here recent behavior, or offer advice on how to handle her behavior? --Ronz 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. User_talk:KillerChihuahua is looking in. --Ronz 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Lincoln College

Please explain your reasons for replacing the Lincoln College (University of Adelaide) page with this nasty and degrading rubbish. A great deal of time and effort was put into it in order to actively promote the college and you have removed it and replaced it with disgraceful non-sense.

I am a Student at Lincoln College and was given permission by the college to modify the page to promote the College in a positive matter.You have destroyed everything that the College was endeavouring to do.

Need Neutral Editor to Solve Dispute

My contribution to the Houri article about the appearance of the Houri as a spiritual symbol in Baha'i scripture has been deleted several times. I would like you -- or someone -- to look over the arguments. It seems to me that the Baha'i editors are censoring on the basis of religious belief, thus violating the NPOV rule. I've cited academic works to support my case. The issue comes down to the use of the word "houri" in these scriptures is actually in the original Arabic text, but Baha'is insist on translating it as "maiden" -- with "houri" only appearing in unofficial translations. (These latter translations are by competent scholars from top universities -- this is not just "fly-by-night" stuff.) But, whatever the translation, the texts describe an houri -- and give a different conception of that term than is usually found in popular Islam. There seems to be some implication that I somehow want to discredit the Baha'i Faith. Nothing could be further from the truth; I'd like for these wonderful, mystical works to be appreciated. In any case, my understanding is that there is a rule against continual reverting like this. These editors would, of course, be free to modify my contribution -- that's how Wikipedia works. But they seem quite determined that this portion of the Houri article will not appear at all, in any form. Please help!76.208.127.126 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geni, I'm the one he's arguing with. If you decide to get involved, the conversation can be found here, and this is the edit that he keeps adding, and I keep deleting. Cuñado - Talk 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln College

Further to the statement above (not made by me), I'd like to request that the Lincoln College page be restored to the last edit made, prior to the revert to Sept 23rd. The amount of time and effort put in to that page by both Collegians and members of other Colleges should not just be thrown away in such a fashion. As far as I can tell, there were no "copyvios" or any other reason to revert the page, and revert was not discussed at all on the page itself or on the Talk Page. If this is not reason enough to restore, please discuss. ABVS1936 06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bondage mitten

Can I ask why you deleted the 3rd variant of the bondage mitten from the article. Regards naturalhomes 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Hi Geni, can you fill me in on the recent blocks and protections being done? I'd like to be informed too, if that's okay. --HappyCamper 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Bobabo sock talk page needing protection

• User talk:JsmithTWO Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Boone Stutz

I am using the Boone Stutz image (boonestutz.jpg) with permission of AggieAthletics.com. Please let me know if I have not tagged it properly. I'm new to Wikipedia and fairly ignorant, but please bear with me - I'm trying! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSully (talk • contribs) 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Deleted Image:WikipediaProc.jpg

Hello, thanks for deleting the image. Do you have the power to tackle Commons:Image:WikipediaProc.jpg and Commons:Image:Memory card.jpg? Thanks. --Ouro 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My article was deleted

Hello. I created an article about 2 weeks ago, but it seems like it got vandalised today and now it's deleted (The article was "General Discussion Forum"). I'd like if I could create the article again. Can you set some sort of protection on the article? I'd really appreciate it, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BadSp00n (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Usar page

"Fair use" images are not allowed outside the article namespace could you remove them please?Genidealingwithfairuse 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Done and done, I left myself the Corgi one and the Cougar one (both free to use). Mikael GRizzly 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much that was impressively fast.Geni 17:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, I'm a warrior 8D Mikael GRizzly 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A drop of WikiLove

Just to share a little WikiLove: thanks for responding to support over at Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote. Since it's a trend away from Wikipedia's historical principles, the burden of justification lays on those who support the proposal and you're doing the work to ensure this is respected. Thanks, your efforts are appreciated, Oldak Quill 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward "Little Buster" Forehand deletion

In October, I created an article for "Edward 'Little Buster' Forehand". In November, it was deleted, with the deleting editor citing copyright violation, because they found the article on the website for the Long Island Music Hall of Fame. The article shouldn't have been deleted in the first place -- I'm a member of the Board of the LIMHoF, and I posted the article here BEFORE we ever posted it on our website. And, just to be clear, about a week and a half ago, Rich L'Hommedieu, the chairman of the LIMHof Board, sent an e-mail to Wikimedia granting permission for Wikipedia to reprint anything that is on the LIMHoF website. I'd like the Edward "Little Buster" Forehand article to be reinstated in its entirety ASAP. Thanks. User:divamanhughes 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Link "Spamming"

Hi there, thanks for your lovely comment on my page but if you actually did you research you would see that they were related to the pages I edited them on. You even reverted some changes that FIXED links on the pages.

Do your research before accusing people of such things. 203.161.102.18 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Album covers having to be refered to in album article

I have started a seperate/parallel conversation about the album covers situation at the talk page at WP:FU. I hope we can come to some equal agreement. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay to remove wikify?

In October of 2006, you placed a request for wikification on the article for Samuel R. Delany's Return to Neveryon. Some extensive work has been done to that article since that time. I don't consider myself to be knowledgeable enough in the ways of Wikipedia to know if it's time to remove the request, so I'd like your opinion. Thanks, --Kdring 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Kdring 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to North-West Rebellion

Your recent edit to North-West Rebellion (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit Talking Heads

Hi, Just wondering what your justification was for removing the image from above article? PeterPartyOn 23:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion- Live The Dream: A Fierce Panda Sampler

Not that I'm particularly invested in it, but as I understand it the deletion was inappropriate. The note you gave was "Advert g12", which I believe implies 1) the article had some commercial purpose and 2) there was a copyright violation. As it was only a track list, #2 doesn't apply, and the E-bay page I linked to was simply where I got the track list from.

I really only added the stuff there because I'd been reverted twice for trying to delete a totally unrelated redirect on the page. I figured with some content my fix might stick. I wouldn't mind a proposed deletion because it lacks significant informative value, but it was neither spam nor in violation of copyright, so a speedy deletion seems hasty. Thank you YoMamma568 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you delete?

I contributed a photo to the Valparaiso article and you deleted it. What was the reason? You didn't like it? It would be good if you could provide a reason as to why you are doing certain things on articles.Moshe-paz 12:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Ion pump (physics)

I see you deleted Ion pump (physics) as a copyvio. Could you double-check that there really were no non-infringing versions of it? Based on the deletion log, there's a previous case of a bad-faith claim of copyvio for that article. DMacks 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation! DMacks 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Demonescolloge.jpg

Could you please help me with the copy right then? All the images in the collage are a TV capture from the broadcast of the show. Only 1 image in the whole picture is a scan from the album soundtrack I own. Any help with licensing would be appreciated. Greekboy 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cant I label it under tv capture since it is a TV capture? Should I ask Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? Greekboy 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have all the pictures I used. I dont really see the problem though, because I had the picture uploaded for over 1 year with no problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greekboy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Deletion of G.ho.st page

I would kindly like to request the un-deletion of G.ho.st. I can not understand why it was deleted especially when similar companies have a similar page describing what they are doing.

Protection on Jen (Power_Rangers)

Hi. Your edits to this page removed the protection [5]. It is still listed at WP:PP. FYI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Gen Resc

Headquarters confirmed legal rights to any copyrighted material for Generation Rescue. Please do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staff Writer Wiki (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

GENI:

Seems you are unveiling your pals and bag of tricks on Generation Rescue to prevent an objective review of the facts. Feel free to add your own comments, but the words used are certainly neutral and reasonable.

GENI:

Please remove your requests from the Generation Rescue listing, they have been addressed. From the above, seems you do a lot of this.

Image:Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.jpg

Where's the IFD on this? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I hate to be the bearer of news that means more time-consuming activities, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, including blocking her. Would you be willing to be named in an (IMO premature) RfA here? Please let me know on my talk page or email me. -- Fyslee 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

I noticed your removed a deleted image (Caf.voodoo.640pix.jpg)from the F-101 Voodoo article today. How can I find out why and by whom the image was deleted? Geni- you've removed images that were all CF Forces images that are in the public domain. Why? Thanks. - BillCJ and Bzuk 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment: Canadain armed forces images are generaly not in the public domain. Crown copyright perhaps public domain unlikely. In any case they were listed as non comercial use only and thus were deleted.Geni 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have used CF images in my books and they are provided "copyright free" and in the "public domain"- they are posted on public sites and only require the original source to be referenced. Obviously, someone who found these images had not properly cited their sources but in that case, there should have been some notice before they were "yanked." Bzuk 04:32 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Canadian Forces Images

Geni, in rereading the copyright provisions for Canadian Forces Images, I can't see what the problem with them is. Here is the quote: Copyright / Permission to Reproduce

Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:

• Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
• The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

Bzuk 5:54 27 January 2007 (UTC).

So, do I pass?

Resp at User:Kim_Bruning/rfatest --Kim Bruning 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Link deleted twice, why?

Hello, why was the external link to www.boatr.org.uk twice removed from the canal and narrowboat categories? It's a relevant link for these topics. It's a non-commercial site trying to help the boating community find useful information. Thanks, Jason King. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonking (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism on page Alan Wake

Hi there can you please have a look at the changes SkyWalker has been making on the Alan_Wake page. He is going and deleting all links and classing them as spam when they are listed under the fansites list.

I gave him 48 hours to explain his reasoning, which he didn't respond so I reverted his changes and he comes back and deletes all the links simply saying "Deleted ALL links."

If you could kindly look into this and also see his response (which he gave after the 48 hour span) on my talk page. His actions by deleting all the links and even threatening me to continue deleting all the links I believe is not within your rule set. Saiger 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Replaceable fair use

Hello there! It appears that there is a bit of conflict brewing on the template I mentioned. Since the template is protected (ergo all the warring parties are admins), page protection doesn't seem to be an action for ending the fighting. In any case, please discuss things on the talk page because it's much better than wheel warring. (I'm giving people involved in the RV-athon this message. If you know someone else who needs to read it, send it to them, too.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

CC/GFDL

The point is moot, since I am the author of the text, placing it here under the GFDL as well as on BhamWiki under its semi-equivalent CC license. --Dystopos 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

After further study (see Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Licenses), I differ slightly with your statement that "there are no CC lisences [sic] that are directly compatable [sic] with GFDL. thus CC text can't be put on wikipedia unless it is also GFDL." The licenses are compatible enough that the contributor can dual-license the text under Wikipedia's GFDL and the CC-BY-SA license (which is perfectly OK, and which I have done via a notice on my user page). The only added requirement is that the original author should be credited. Generally that is most conveniently done by linking to a specific version of the source. In this case, since I am the author, WP's history tab provides the correct attribution.

As to the Heaviest Corner on Earth article in question, you will note that I have also added a section to BhamWiki's copyright page explicitly allowing content to be used in Wikipedia and other GFDL publications provided that the terms of the original license are preserved. I would appreciate it if you would consider removing the copyvio tag from the article. --Dystopos 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of OS maps of Bedfordshire

Why have File:Dunstablemap1954.jpg and similar images been deleted? They were Crown Copyright and over 50 years old. I am not the editor who created the images and included them in articles, but I have just edited Dunstable to include a note that refers to "the map of 1954 illustrated above" which makes no sense now. JonH 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I will revise the note in the article. JonH 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the map of 1944. JonH 12:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-presumed

You edited this template to indicate this is not to be used for images uploaded after 1 Jan 2006, but I don't see any discussion on the talk page to say why this might be. Where might I find such discussion? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The template was originaly designed for when we were first tagging images and there were some that had been uploaded by people who had left. Today tagging is standard. if something isn't tagged there is no reason at all to presume GFDL.Geni 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. Considering that GFDL is the default licensing, there are definitely cases in which GFDL can be presumed (self-portraits, for example, or images where the description clearly states the user is the uploader but no license tag has been applied). At the very least, I think this issue should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Howcheng. I use this template frequently when a newbie has uploaded a clearly self-made image but has tagged it wrong. —Angr 07:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Howcheng and Angr. There are many cases where a user uploads a worthwhile, self-created image, without knowing the complexities of image policy. GFDL-presumed is for them. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Um in the situation you have just outlined I doubt it is legal.Geni 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it not legal? Are you a lawyer? --Fang Aili ^talk 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Amorrow back again?

I have a suspicion that 64.9.233.132 (talk · contribs) and Farever (talk · contribs) are both sockpuppets of User:Amorrow. Not sure what to do about it, figured you'd probably have more idea than I do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln College again

I have just been reading the comments being made about linconl college. I am quite upset about the whole reversion to a simple and useless tidbit about the college that exists at the moment. The editing that was made about the college previously should have been allowed.

A user above commented about "getting the colleges' permission to promote the college in a positive light" - what in the world is that !! Is it okay to edit the various contentious issues (e.g genocide in iraq, hitler etcc) and remove facts to promote it in a positive manner ? this is just ridiculous!

Again, not trying to say you dont know what you are talking about but i dont see the copywright violations. For example listing previous principls and club presidents. I mean is it copywright to list american presidents?

Your thoughts would be really appreciated.

Lincoln College

What is the college material?

There was nothing copied from the college's website.

People were writing from their recent memory.

I do agree personal comments are not warranted but reverting the page to the old? it is almost like big brother delelting what it does not want.

Instead of deleting it willy nilly as an editor you should have identfied the material which is "copywright" and made the changes as appropriate.

Also what is the "okay order" of writing down principls.

As a suggestion why dont we do what i suggested ie revert it and edit it so it does not infringe copywright etcc.....

Lincoln COllege

Then why did you not just remove that part and leave the rest.

If i were to revert it to an old version would you revert it back?

Asha Gill image

She allows her pics to be used anywhere with credit, she hasn't limited it to anywhere. She doesn't have a policy over modifications (as far as I know she doesn't mind them provided they're not pornographic). She's unavailable at the moment, but when I get a chance I'll ask her. The pictures in the Tag Heuer collections are meant to be used for promo and identifying purposes, which would include Wikipedia.

City Bank Farmers Trust Building

There is a link on the page, to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission ("LPC") order designating the building as a landmark. The picture came from the order itself. As an agency of the City of New York, LPC's designation orders are a matter of public record and not subject to copyright laws.

Your edits to Goatse.cx

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.CraggOfTheJungle 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flower.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flower.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nardman1 19:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cafe Press

You mentioned problems with cafe press. What precisely are you talking about? JoshuaZ 23:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better place other than CafePress that does the same thing?—Perceval 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Green Cross Code Man

I have restored the image you deleted. The image is Crown Copyright and may be re-used free of charge for research for non-commercial purposes and private study, subject to the material being re-used accurately and not used in a misleading context so long as the source of the material is identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

If you delete it again I will restore it again. If you delete it 100 times I will restore it 100 times. Don't try playing this game with me, because you will lose. — Bchan 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Ani Difranco: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

I just wanted to check to see why you deleted , which was being used on the Ani DiFranco article. I checked the logs and didn't notice any discussion, and didn't really understand the comment you left associated with the deletion. According to the Talk:Ani_DiFranco#Picture, the picture was granted for use by the owner.
Thanks,
B.Mearns^*, KSC 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thanks for clearing that up. B.Mearns^*, KSC 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:PhilippinesGov

Hi, Geni. Since it's to much for work for CSD, and since some people may want a chance to make a fair use rationale for some of those image, I suggest edditing the template so that it adds it's images to Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 13 February 2007 (using the date which you change the template). This way, if no (sound) fair use rationale is provided is 7 days, the image will be deleted.

I'm pretty sure orphanBot will warn the uploader for us, but it may be better to check with Carnildo.

Also, more as a generic suggestion for the no rationale tagged images, the tag should ask the editor providing the rationale not to remove the tag immediately, but instead, let it there so that the closing admin could judge the validity of the tag. I have seen far to many "this is a historically significant image of a unique event in the life of a famous individual..." recently, sometimes, even for headshots.

By the way, I have raised concerns about this template back in December, but the discussion at the time was inconclusive.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i need help

hi, i am a student and i have to do a project on wikipedia. my picture was deleted and i need a pic in oder to get full credit. i followed the rules on how to upload the picture. i read the website's policy on copyright and it stated as long as i cite the source i could use it freely. i cited it and when i thought everything was done, it was deleted. i went back and checked the site and i am assuming it was delted because i forgot to site the author (in this case i guess the illustrator,Jaume Oll) and i did not cite the website the correct way (i typed world animated flags instead of FOTW Flags Of The World website at http://flagspot.net/flags/). is there some way that i could re-upload the image and be able to fix those mistakes, i have the website to the copyright portion which is http://www.atlasgeo.net/fotw/flags/disclaim.html#cop? or is it a lost cause and have to find a similar image? if there is anything that you may know on how to keep it from happening again i would like to know. thank you, Jenni —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscolese (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

redo of i need help

hi, i am a student and i have to do a project on wikipedia. my picture was deleted and i need a pic in oder to get full credit. i followed the rules on how to upload the picture. i read the website's policy on copyright and it stated as long as i cite the source i could use it freely. i cited it and when i thought everything was done, it was deleted. i went back and checked the site and i am assuming it was delted because i forgot to site the author (in this case i guess the illustrator,Jaume Oll) and i did not cite the website the correct way (i typed world animated flags instead of FOTW Flags Of The World website at http://flagspot.net/flags/). is there some way that i could re-upload the image and be able to fix those mistakes, i have the website to the copyright portion which is http://www.atlasgeo.net/fotw/flags/disclaim.html#cop? or is it a lost cause and have to find a similar image? if there is anything that you may know on how to keep it from happening again i would like to know. thank you, Jenni Jscolese 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)jscolese

sooo... does that mean that if that is the only image that i can find that is related to my article and that i got the image from another source i cannot use it at all? does it have anything to do with the similarities in the name of the picture? i just want to know the specifics so i know what to do.Jscolese 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)jscolese

blank

i blanked because i was not sure if i wanted to put it up yet. i was also wondering how could i get an image for my article that is free and will be accepted by wikipedia?Jscolese 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)jscolese

blank

okay, so then i can use the image i was using before but the one that is on wikipedia. is that correct? but either way you were a great help! thanks!Jscolese 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)jscolese

Stacey Roca

Why did you delete the image of Stacey Roca? Was there a complaint about it? 217.42.97.108 11:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as a replaceable fair use image that had been tagged as such for tagged for 7 days.Geni 12:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

blank

shortening this up since it was getting big. so, if i put it in the sandbox, will people be able to review it to let me know if it okay or not? thanks!

Hey can you take a look at my sandbox and let me know if this is good? thanks,

Spears article

why did you revert with no explanation? 69.119.239.138 02:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

because it should be obvious that the event is not that significant.Geni 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

it is not obvious, so please respond here

3RR Policy

Just curious as to your reasoning here, where is it stated that 3RR cannot warrant a 48 hour block? As WP:3RR states, "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations." As a third offense and in a case where the editor had been edit-warring on multiple articles, reverting 6 times on the one in question, I believe a 48 hour block to be perfectly reasonable. In this case, the block was appealed for different reasons, and I ultimately (albeit grudgingly) came to accept the appeal as legitimate; had this seperate appeal not made, however, I could see no justification for your unblock. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a discrepancy between the wording in the 3RR policy itself, as quoted above, and the information and instructions at the top of WP:AN3, which refer only to blocks of "up to 24 hours." Newyorkbrad 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Miccoli band

Why have ypu deleted my article on the band miccoli. It is a proper article???? so why you delete it!!

ASPIRE copyvio

Why did I have to wait until nearly 2 AM to find the copyvio source: http://www.ahkuae.com/pdf/GATE_04-2006.pdf. I suggest giving the user an indef block later for possible spamming for his own company. I gave him a 24 hour block so I can stop his crap. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tree of Knowledge image deletion

Hi Geni. I noticed that you just deleted the Tree of Knowledge System Image. This was my first time uploading an image to Wikipedia, so I apologize for not getting it right. I was wondering if you could leave a message on my talk page and tell me exactly what I did wrong and what I should do to correct it. Thanks. EPM 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brigantine Pathfinder image deletion

hi Geni just wondering why the image on the article Brigantine Pathfinder was deleted. I am a new user but i got permission from the copyright owner to use the image. Fclegg814 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image:SteveDK.jpg

Hi Geni, just wondering why you deleted the image of steve brown that I uploaded with permission from the copyright holder. --Schalicto 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re : Daniel Brandt

There is nothing wrong with allowing debate in the proper venues. In this case, on deletion review (as it is a speedy deletion) rather than jumping on articles for deletion without closing the former properly. You may also wish to consider Kirill Lokshin's comments on the admin noticeboard. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• DRV first, then XfD after overturn/relist - that was the long-standing process. Let the DRV run its full course. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't do ...DRV...AfD... ad infinitum. In this case, the point is moot as we speak actually. - Mailer Diablo 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Something like that. ;) - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration case

By direction of Jimbo Wales, the matter of the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war has been referred to the Arbitration Committee. An arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war and you have been named as a party. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Skins Fix!

Many thanks for the ctrl F5 fix for my skins, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Firefox_and_Wikipedia. It was just the kind of thing so hard to find without help. So nice to have the real Wikipedia back! 66.167.77.164 14:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about a deleted Russian Aerosan photo Ant4 1.gif

Hi, if I understand the history page correctly related to an image file, you have deleted a photo entitled Ant4 1.gif which was on the Aerosans page and was a photo of a Russian made ANT-IV snowplane/snowmobile built in 1924. I am curious, why was this photo deleted from the page? Melensdad 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad

Another edit for ya

As someone posting Essjay's questionable edits (mailing list), you may also be interested in this one: [6]

It is his RfA answer where he states, "I am a theology scholar after all" as a base of what he's proud of. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and wanna talk about irony: [7] Scroll down to number 9 where one of his issues with the user is that he "Lied repeatedly about himself". I am just kind of chuckling. I like Essjay, but this is a little funny. --Ali'i 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And again, only this time he uses it as a basis for an ArbCom case: [8] Saying, "Rainbowwarrior1977 has engaged in ... RfA fraud,... repeated lies and disinformation about himself.... He claims to be a well-credentialed contributor (an attorney with a JD from NYU) with exhaustive contributions to Wikipedia..." (calling all of it "disruptive behavior"). --Ali'i 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

TechCrunch mediation

		Quick Links for MedCab Case: Cases/TechCrunch
		Talk:TechCrunch

There is now an active WP:Mediation Cabal case to resolve whether or not the "criticisms" in the TechCruch article should or should not remain. As one of the editors participating in the matter, you are invited to help in the resolution. For more info please follow above links. Wikidemo 03:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image placeholders

Hi. Sorry to bother you. I got into a mini-edit war regarding the image placeholder which you seem to be involved in (see User talk:LetsGoMets11). Has some consensus been reached on when that placeholder should be used? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same question, regarding Cat Stevens - are these image place holders being discussed somewhere? Tvoz | talk 05:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually let me clarify my question: has a policy been instituted that requires these place holders to be added whenever there is no picture or a picture is removed? And since I doubt that, shouldn't this be something that editors of articles decide by consensus? Tvoz | talk 06:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Geni. I've posted a comment/question at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#No free image available. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war

This case has been closed and the final decision is listed on the above page

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melband

Hello! I noticed you nominated Melband for deletion, but apparently forgot to subst the Afd2 template onto the nomination subpage. I've fixed it for you. Happy editing! --Slowking Man 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Dalip Singh

Oh. Sorry then, thanks for the info. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: ad4

I'm not sure that linking to from owner is a good idea since it only offers one lisence option and most wikipedians want more.Geni 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See David Gerard's comment above. Ideally it would link to Special:Upload on Commons, but for most users that would just give a "you are not logged in" error page. Do you have a better suggestion, or shall I just change it back to Special:Upload? (and subsequently be asked to change it back, ad infinitum...) – Qxz 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

would not be a major problem to set up a fromadvert system. Would need to find some sucker to look after it to a degree.Geni 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not worth the effort, this is only a small thing. I'll change it back to Special:Upload, then, if people want multiple licenses. Once single user login comes along it should be possibly to point it to Commons. Thanks – Qxz 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Franklinpierce1 vandalizing User:Rklawton's userpage again

Just wanted to let you know that the user you banned once before is now vandalizing Rklawton's page again.K. Scott Bailey 21:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Life images

Hi. As I guess was clear, I created those images myself. Are you saying that no image at all taken of settings or events in Second Life can be considered the intellectual property of the person who creates the image? I'd find that a bit surprising, but if it's true then I guess we simply cannot use images from Second Life. End of story. In those circumstances, I suppose the images should be deleted, and I won't be upset about it, but can't someone give us a legal opinion on it? It seems a pity to get rid of good user-created images (which were a bit fiddly to make) if there's not actually a copyright problem. Metamagician3000 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Duke of Bridgewater's Mines

Dear Geni

Many moons ago you expressed an interest in the Duke of Bridgewater's Mines when commenting on an article I had started on Butterley Tunnel. I have now found time to start an article on this subject entitled Worsley Navigable Levels. It is, by no means complete so please contribute if you wish.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image currently up for deletion for being a possible Copyright Violation

Hi Geni, remember the image Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg ? Well, this image has been put up for deletion again. This time, it has been put up for deletion by administrator Nilfanion as a "possible unfree image". Evidently this admin has discovered new information that leads them to believe that this image is actually a copyvio after all. I'm contacting you because I remembered that when this image was up for deletion before, you were the first one that I know of that originally questioned the copyright status of this image. I re-read your comments on the log of that deletion discussion and thought that the information that you had uncovered about this image could be helpful to the admins that are currently looking into this matter. If you would like to share your knowledge of this and help them, just go here [[9]] and scroll down to March 21 2007. Thank You Very Much ! Infofreak 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Yes sir.Crion 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Replace this image1.svg

I like this image. Could you make similar for landscapes, buildings and maps?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

License tagging for Image:Replace this imageb.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Replace this imageb.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)