User talk:Hetar/archive4

This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

"cross namespace" sounds pretty evil

the pronunciation article has nothing on nonstandard pronunciation. it doesn't even seem to link directly to anything about it. Wɔlk Unseen 06:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact is, cross-namespace redirects are a no no. If there is nothing about nonstandard pronunciation in the pronunciation article, perhaps you should add something. --Hetar 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

The reason I changed the rows on your states box was that on my resolution, 1024x768, the flags went off the page to me. Most users' resolutions are 1280×1024 or less, while fewer have your resolution. - Pureblade | ^Θ 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm that is something to think about, although I am tempted to leave it to inspire others to join me on the sunny shores of high resolution land. --Hetar 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have mine higher, but that's the highest my crappy monitor will go, which is the reason for most lower resolutions. - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: warning

Thank-you for the message. I apologise for the trouble. I was informed that the image uploaded (SS501 KimHyunJoong.jpg) was released by the record company as promotional material. - Robbie 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hetar -

I need your help to show appropriately that I have received permission from the original author to post an edited version of material written by that author (Howard Jaffe) on a "Moe Jaffe" Wikipedia page. He has sent permission twice to Wikipedia, though we can find no evidence that they have taken any action. His permission is shown on both the My Talk and Discussion pages associated with the "Moe Jaffe" Wikipedia page. Apace361 21:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC). E-mail contact: paceaj@umkc.edu.[reply]

Hi

What if we don't wan't to use email? How are we supposed to contact you then? --Hetar 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that situation, I'd rather not be contacted on my talk page. But I'll be watching all the talk pages for all the articles I contribute to. It won't be hard to reach me. If you wish to reply, please do so below, I'll be checking back. --Go for it! 05:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very wiki friendly :( --Hetar 05:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to be very friendly. :-) Out there in the Wiki. See you on Tip of the day! --Go for it! 06:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah hi

You forgot to leave your name after putting forth a message on my discussion page. It's mandatory here on Wikipedia. Hucz 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your not supposed to sign your name with the PUI template. --Hetar 22:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message in my watchlist

I was wondering what your message in my watch list meant. You said What to do about people probably promoting their own work and I wonder what this is in reference to Curious Judytan

Wikipedia:Random picture of the day

Please talk to one of the presidents before making changes. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to one of the "presidents"? So now you own Random picture of the day? --Hetar 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George and I both. You cannot change how it works without first discussing it. Either contact us, or start a straw poll on the talk page. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to change how it works. However, you seem to have imposed arbitrary restrictions that aren't posted on the page anywhere. The page says simply, "Anybody can put a picture here." But then when I try and add a picture, you treat it like scum saying that it needs to be replaced because it wasn't added by the uploader or because it's "takes too long to load." If your going to impose restrictions, at least have the decency to explain them so that other users know what they are. --Hetar 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Can we just settle this? I don't want to get involved in this edit war. There are no restrictions except for copyright. If you want to nominate someone else's pic, please tell them. The only real restriction is copyright. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 19:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please remove Linuxerist's comments that invalidate several pictures. --Hetar 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my "Support" comment on the Mfd. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no headline

Well, I would really love it if you showed me where this is mentioned on Wikipedia. And how do you suppose I'm supposed to reply to someone when they leave a message, which is fairly important in my case? Hucz 06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PUI notice should be replied to at WP:PUI, which the message specifically mentions.... --Hetar 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request II

Sorry, I wasn't on until after the day changed and it was off the main page. I meant to drop you a message on your talk page hours ago, but I got caught up dealing with a revert war. Anyway, concerns likes these can always be brought up on WP:AN where another admin can take a look. Thanks!--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology

I am very sorry about the edit war, and not being reasonable with you. I no longer consider myself to have any more right than you with the Wikipedia:Random picture of the day. As I suggested here, let's have a vote after the mfd closes. LINUX ERIST@ 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no hard feelings. I still think a vote is the wrong way to go at this point though, around here they prefer working to build consensus. --Hetar 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I have offended you in any way, I apologize too. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and again, no hard feelings. --Hetar 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [1]
Roger ambrose 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Havok (T/C/c) 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conscientiology

Thanks for the message. As you probably guessed, this was my first go at an AfD. I followed the instructions at Template:AfD_in_3_steps as best I could, but there was no mention that I could see there of how to deal with articles which have been AfD'd and then deleted and then resurrected. As I hope you noticed, I didn't actually interfere with the previous AfD discussion - it's still all there in its box. Anyway, thanks for the "repost" tip - clearly I should read up on Speedy Deletion and I've bookmarked Template messages/Deletion. --GuillaumeTell 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, I just wanted to let you know for next time. --Hetar 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hetar... I'm a very light Wiki user and am not completely familiar with all the norms, although I will make changes to articles where I see fit. Thanks! --Bubba_Phat 6 June 2006 9:59 PM.

Music site

I know, it was me who created the Music free download nom, and I'm just after putting a speedy tag on the Music site nom. Thanks for the message though. --Kwekubo 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dolores O.jpeg

I had already tagged this as having no source, and that tag was replaced by a highly dubious GFDL tag. So I brought it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. I looked at the uploader's history and it seems he has issues with sourcing images. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already found my listing. My bad. : ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5150 Studios

I removed your speedy tag, anr replaced wiht a prod, as it does not fall under csd a7, as it is a building/program, not a group or an organization. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: archive

Oh i just don see the point.. theres no important stuff going on in my talk page.. its just for fun/getting help. i just clear it every day or two..i like it nice and clean :D •USER•ADAM THE ATOM•TALK• 10:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many users consider it misleading. It looks like your trying to hide something. --Hetar 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manisheth

You tagged this as {{nocontext}}. It was a test page which is WP:CSD G2 ({{db-g2}}), not no context which is CSD A1 ({{db-a1}}). We all make mistakes while rushing through NP patrol, but especially since you are writing out the long templates, please try to be accurate. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference, the page easily qualifies under either criteria, and will be deleted either way. --Hetar 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:BhaiKanhaiyaAsthan.jpg

You say: "If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted"

Can you explain who is disputing this entry as it has been created by GNNSJ uk as stated on the image page. All the information about the image is on the page - please state exactly what is going on and who is challenging this entry? --Hari Singh 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image has obviously been scanned, so it doesn't look like GFDL-self applies. --Hetar 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banner_orbit2.gif

check the edit summary. i have the rights to let this art work loose. SpacePlace

I checked the edit summary before I tagged theimage. I see nothing there that proves you have the rights to this image. --Hetar 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- he doesn't have rights to the image -- he has annoyed a lot of artists because he has taken their work and is presenting it as his own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.171.249 (talk • contribs) .

indeed

yes, i found the answer involving userboxes. thanx for your concern. Aaron teh tennisman 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I really appreciate your compliment on one of my photo! (Garrett Rock)

Question

Yes, {{fair use reduce}}. --Rory096 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Dining

Please state the exact problem with this article, rather than just writting it off as campus cruft. Thank you. Presidank 06:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IS the exact problem. It's minutia thats not notable. Do we now need an article on ever dining organization at every school? (that is a rhetorical question btw) --Hetar 07:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No we do not. However, we do need an article documenting the first dining organization in the nation to go certified organic. And as far as notability, this organization has been mentionend in many reputable news soures independent of the University itself, falling under the Wikipedia criterion for notability.

On another note. You are interested in WoW, do we need an article on every aspect of this nonexistant universe? Presidank 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not need an article on every aspect of WoW. In fact, I have proposed/voted to delete many WoW articles (see [2], [3], [4] [5] for some examples). As for your "reputable sources", if you mean significant national coverage, I would be ineterested to see it. --Hetar 08:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Contra Costa Times is listed as one of the sources covering the opening of the first 100% certified organic campus dining hall found here [6]. Being the third largest paper in the San Francisco Bay Area, and having a Wikipeida article itself, I beleive that this newspaper is reputable enough. Also there have been other press releases, cited in the article regarding the company, which qualifies it for notability under WP:CORP. It would do better if you address the issue at hand rather than present paper tiger arguments. Presidank 10:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you would do better if you would stop telling me what do and started acting a little more civil. I left the last question open to suggest an opportunity for you to curtiously provide some nice evidence so that I could consider changing my recommendation, but if you insist on belittling my opinion and its recommendation, were not going to get anywhere. --Hetar 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you felt that I was uncivil and belittling your opinion, this is not what I had intended. The problem with reading an online post is that one cannot listen to the tone of what is being said. I can see how you could interpert my comment as uncivil, however I assure you this is not what I had planned, nor do I think that I have crossed the lines set forth by WP:CIVIL. I was merely suggesting that you yourself present evidence that refutes my claim or perhaps tell me what is the exact line and/or phrases that bother you with the article so that I may fix it, rather than simply shouting "cruft." Other than that, I feel that I have answered your question in regards to the evidence needed to support my argument. My appologies again if you felt that I was uncivil and/or out of line with my comments.

P.S.

The number of colons we are having to use to go back and forth on this is getting a bit ridiculous and slightly humorus. =P

Presidank 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you refering to as nonsense?

What exactly are you refering to as nonsense?GomerianGod 16:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article that was deleted. --Hetar 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Zilk

Hi, are you serious? While I was trying to add details, of course including source information, there's suddenly an edit conflict because you added that stupid no source tag? This is absolutely ridiculous. <KF> 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am serious. Images that have no source information get tagged with nsd. Simple as that. Nothing against you or your image personally, I do it to dozens of images every day. --Hetar 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you also seem to be proud of it and unable to understand what I'm saying. Give people a chance to find the relevant template and/or to formulate a fair use rationale or a caption or whatever. Don't tag images ten seconds after they have been uploaded. It's extremely frustrating and unnecessary. Wait for quarter of an hour or so. That won't mean the end of the world, or of Wikipedia. Best wishes, <KF> 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see why it should be frustrating. Even after tagging the image they still have at least 7 days (more like around 14 with the current backlog) before any action on the image is taken. What I find frustrating, is users who don't take the time to research their images before they upload them. --Hetar 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion terms and confusion

On the article deletion talk for : MyFavatar you stated,

Delete: Alexa rank of 951,371, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP

What does this mean exactly? --Zandarx ^talk 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Alexa rank is a ranking that determines how often a page is visited. The higher a page's alexa rank, the less often that page is visited. Most webpages that have articles on Wikipedia have an alexa rank lower than 100,000 (and thats being generous). WP:CORP is a link to some guidelines we have to determine if an article on a certain company should be included or not. We have simillar guidelines for websites at WP:WEB. Hope that clears things up. --Hetar 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Please do the last one for me. It is my own posting, as mediator of that article. Please respond to this! (if you will or not) I will hang around if you do. I can't render the opnion to this as I am the mediator (thus bound to be impartial) Thanks!! Eagle talk 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm working on it as we speak :). --Hetar 06:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond in the future on my page... I can't watch every page on wikipeida... then the point of the watchlist is defeated:-). Sorry, and Thanks!

That seems suffiecient... I can't comment further (I may be technically allowed, but I feel honor-bound to remain impartial:-). Eagle talk 06:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you know of any "gnomish tasks" around here I can participate in. (not stub-sorting... that is evil and is equivalent to putting work off.) I am a poor writer, unless it is C++, C#, C++/CLI, HTML, XML, ect. (you get the point:), so I don't want to try and improve anyone's grammer or anything:). Any Ideas? P.S.S. what is the best way to get introduced to AfD. Everytime I go there all I see are landslides... and there is no point to voting when you agree with a vast majority... advice here is also appreciated. (note I understand policy... I am known as a fast reader and read all of WP policy on my first day after joining). took about 2 in a half hours give or take a half, but was worth it.

Ok I better stop showing off my bad writing skills... Tnanks!Eagle talk 06:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I just saw your eagle scout user box. I am one in the state of OH. got it last year! Can I use your box?Eagle talk 06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol and more

Funny you should mention that... That is another activity I have been staying away from... As a VandalProof moderator, I have had enough of that:). I help with technical issues ect. and adding new users... and dealing with abuses of the tool.

Images sound great... one catch... the only policy I don't understand and don't "get" is the image-copy-vio policy. So I make it my policy not to mess with images. If you are willing to teach me the copy-vio rules and walk me through one or two... I am a quick learner trust me!

Can you find me the link to the move/merge list. (how do you do merges exactly)? moves I understand and have done... but how do you merge content properly? Eagle talk 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff for you

These links are generated by programs that I created... thought you might like some of them:)

User:Eagle 101/Novel Project/List01--- this is now a project page on WP:NOVEL along with another "auto-list".

User:Eagle 101/films that are also novels list ---this is currently not on any project, though will be in the future.Eagle talk 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images...

Head spins... thinks of integrating x^x as it looks easier, by the way thats impossible... I invite you to try;) Oh and by the way WP:FU look like something that the lawyers say, similar to tough s#%$, you got to deal with it, so we can make money!

Sorry, just being sarcastic. Thanks for the indepth description of Image copyright... You need to get that into project space somewhere... it have been very nice to know...

I am ok with memorizing the image tag list;) thats not a problem, it's just all the lawyer types... As you see I have been afflicted with lawyerphobia.

I will work on the merge lists first... kill that back log. then I want to look at that WP:CITE, as I can do citations in no time! (copyright does not apply here... rather a concept of academic honesty, which is a heck of a lot more clear-cut concept). (basically recognize me for what I have done... but you may refer to it and build on it all you want. Oh and lawyers stay away from this 99% of the time... science rocks!Eagle talk 07:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, feel free to ask me for anything... have a look at the lists above to see what I can do! (below as well). I will look into images... and I hope my sarcasim brightend up your day:)Eagle talk 07:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eagle 101/Novel Project/List01--- this is now a project page on WP:NOVEL along with another "auto-list".

User:Eagle 101/films that are also novels list ---this is currently not on any project, though will be in the future.Eagle talk 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

LOL...OK, I will do it. I didn't know it was so important. Then again...I could be a vandal and sneaky as well with an edit summary too :o) PajaBG 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Primo Posthuman.jpg

Can you give some justification for this image being licensed at norightsreserved? Or it should be fair use? --Hetar 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. I've replaced the norightsreserved tag with an art fair use tag. --Loremaster 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really qualify under an art tag either. I have replaced with a fairusein tag, please provide a fair use rationale as soon as possible. --Hetar 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you think it qualify as an art tag. This image is considered a work of art by Natasha Vita-More. Regardless, Vita-More is on record in the Talk:Transhumanism page as giving us persmission to upload and use this image in any relevant Wikipedia article. --Loremaster 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looked more like a diagram than art to me. If its creator honestly intended it as a work of art then please change the tag back. Also, if you want you can include information about permission with the image. Of course, that permission has to be accompanied by a fair use rationale because we license all of our content to many different places (see Image:Dubaimall.jpg for an example). --Hetar 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you this Working Man's Barnstar for being one of the folks who keeps WP:3O working well. Keep up the good work. Takeel 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment

Can you please explain why you are taking part in the harrassment of a Wikipedia editor. Why do you believe that these tags are appropriate in this case but not in other articles? Will you please explain why you reject the opinions expressed on the talk page instead of just revert-warring. Thanks. Guettarda 22:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are appropriate in any article where someone questions the validity of the material. I'm not trying to harass anyone, but requesting a citation for the citizenship and navy facts is certainly a legitimate request. --Hetar 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hetar, although I appreciate your support, and agree with your position, I would urge you to keep in mind the WP:3RR policy so that you do not get blocked due to reversions. --Strothra 00:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop violating WP:POINT. Your actions are getting close to vandalism. Guettarda 17:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make any point other than the fact that if someone asks for a citation, we should provide it. Thank heavens someone finally had the brains to do so. --Hetar 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Jim62sch 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain, as per WP:RS, why this is an improvement over Taran saying thison the talk page of the article? You actions are disruptive - presumably your objective is to make a point and not to harrass the subject of the article, although through your actions you have joined in a campaign of harrassment, which is also in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you actually believed what you are claiming, why are you editing other articles with uncited information? As the section below indicates, you don't seem to have a problem restoring inaccurate information to articles, but you insist on removing accurate information. Edit-warring to remove factually accurate information hurts the project. Accurate information which doesn't meet WP:V (but is confirmed by the subject of the bio) is far more useful than inaccurate information which lists a source. Fetishing process over quality hurts Wikipedia. Why do you reject information which is confirmed by the subject and questioned by no one? Why do you accept the word of one user which you cannot verify (someone who says he has a book) but reject information (about himself) from a user whose identity is verifiable? Is it harrassment, or it is just being disuptive for the fun of it? Either one is a violation of policy. Whichever one it is, please desist. Guettarda 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS its not an improvement over what he said on the talk page. And technically, we should still find a better source. But at at this point, I'm just happy that someone had the guts to actually attempt to cite something instead of just removing the citation request.
I have not joined in any campaign of harrasment. You fail to note that I did not agree with all of the other user's points, and I recommended removing the notverified template from the article. Also, I let the current citation stand.
Comparing the Taran Rampersad situation to the article below isn't an accurate comparison. For starters, no one has tagged that article requesting any additional citations. In fact, the section in question cites a specific book (whose existance I have verified). If another user, (with a history of protecting that article from vandalism) comes along and says that he has made some changes to bring the list back in line with its source, it only makes sense to AGF. --Hetar 08:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hetar, if you think that was a personal attack, you have either very thin skin or no concept of personal attacks. It was a statement regarding your behaviour, as opposed to a statement on you personally. "You are an "x"" where x is "bad" is a personal attack, "You are behaving (being) like an "x"", is a comment on behaviour. You were hiding behind WP:V to harass and wikistalk Taran, thus your behaviour is relevant.

BTW, harassment and wikistalking, which is what you were engaged in, are far more severe "infractions" than a perceived personal attack.

And while we're on personal attacks, Guettarda or I can very easily take this, "Thank heavens someone finally had the brains to do so." as a personal attack as it seems to call into question our intelligence. Thus:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Jim62sch 09:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a twit is obviously a personal attack. There is no difference between saying, "you behave like a twit" and "you are a twit". Both are personal attacks. If you take issue with something an editor has done, you should say I think x could have been better. Or in the future, the appropriate way to respond would be like this, not telling them to stop acting like a twit. Also, I don't see where you are pulling the wikistalking acusation from, as I have only been involved in the Rampersad article for the past few days, I haven't even contributed anywhere else at all. As to my previous phrase, please don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that someone finally had the brains to add a citation. There is no personal attack in that statement, just a simple fact that the person who added the citation did what was long overdue. --Hetar 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Preppiest" Schools List

Shouldn't the list of the "preppiest" schools according to The Official Preppy Handbook be the same as the list actually in the book? As for not leaving an explanation, that was an oversight on my part, but you had no trouble figuring out what I'd done. Gromitjc 04:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it should, but without the book in front of me, and with no edit summary, I had no way to know what your doing. Since the list is pretty heavily vandalised, I have just been reverting all unexplained changes to it. At any rate, just revert me and I will let your fixes stand. --Hetar 16:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable - I should've gone back and explained what I'd done. Gromitjc 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning

I work for the university and have thier "OK" so far as images are concerned.

Thanks though... I understand your position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamassippi (talk • contribs) .

OK - pun intended.

Tip of the day

If you are around, I could use your help filling the day slots for July. --Go for it! 09:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July is stocked with tips. Could you look them over please?

I've filled July with a selection of tips from the tip authoring page, revisions of previously posted tips, some brand new ones, and some combinations. If you would be so kind as to look them over before they hit the mainstream Wikipedia population, I'd really appreciate it. --Go for it! 17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do :) --Hetar 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3O removal

Hello - I see you removed the 3O request I added [7]. Was that because of the original poster's position on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam? If so, that discussion took place before Barry Popik and I engaged in conversation. I was hoping to get a third opinion from someone that could take into account the comments Barry has made since then. If you still feel that 3O is not the appropriate place for it I understand, and will try other channels. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally when I read the talk page I thought you had already provided the third opinion. In effect, you have already provided the third opinion, as the original dispute was between ccwaters and Barry Popik. I don't see any debate still ongoing at the talk page, and of course, this dispute involves more than two people, so its no longer appropriate for WP:3O. --Hetar 05:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help desk

I did explain my reasoning on his talk page and on the talk page of the page he was upset about, yet he still insists I was acting dishonestly and malicously. He was not decribing my actions, but calling into question my intent, and that is a personal attack. Geedubber 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was describing your actions as dishonest and malicous. Now obviously, that is on the borderline of civility, but why throw a fit over the whole episode and continuallly blank the section from your talk page? Take the high ground, leave a short explanation on your talk page, and move on. --Hetar 05:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newportsurfer

its not copyrighted. its from MY SCHOOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newportsurfer (talk • contribs) .

That doesn't mean that it is uncopyrighted... You should read Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. --Hetar 04:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day project update

Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the contributors to the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:

totd task list template

--Go for it! 17:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hi, you recently removed an image from The Sopranos timeline for being non fair use. I had tried to write a rationale for the fair use of the image. As a relatively new editor with little FU experience I was hoping you could give me some feedback on where my rationale fell short of meeting the fair use criteria. I have also asked for feedback here. The image was Sopranos1st.jpg. --Opark 77 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meco managed to express my reasons very clearly on the article's talk page. --Hetar 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marking article with nocontext

You recently marked the Liam young article with the nocontext tag. That article did have context but just simply needed a bit fixing and cleanup.

Michaelas10 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link

When I frst start on wikipieda, I saw images in signatures, so I never questioned when I did it myself... it's only on a few pages. Not many. Oh well.. Guess I have to work some color Scheme for my sig. :) --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Hetar 05:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youtube alexa graph

Why did you remove the alex graph on YouTube? In this context it is perfectly legitimate to use, since it was marked as a copyrighted image, and in this case it is fair use. I have checked this with a lawyer friend of mine. Please reverse your changes, or I will. KStahlman 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image has an invalid copyright tag. It is tagged as being a screenshot of a webpage, however, it is merely an image copied from a website. Also, just because your "lawyer friend" says it's fair use, does not mean that it complies with Wikipedia's own fair use policies. --Hetar 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Twoflue 2.GIF

You replaced my request for review on Image:Twoflue 2.GIF with a {{fairusedisputed}}, but you didn't explain on that page or my talk page what you felt was insufficient. I've cited the source, owner, presumed copyright (though there's a strong argument to be made that it's public domain given that it's a work owned by the NPS in the U.S.), and the page and use for which its fair use status is asserted. What specific changes did you have in mind to which I can respond? -Harmil 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify just a bit, since I suspect that the word "presumed", above, might be your concern. On any other Web site, I would have simply used the site copyright as the copyright for the image that the site hosts where there is no other proviso and the site isn't simply an upload service (like Wikipedia). This would never have been an issue, and is actually standard practice (it's rare for each image on a site to have its own copyright notice). The only wrinkle here is actually that the work is on a Web site which is owned by a museum which is part of the NPS (a U.S. Government organization), which means that there's some logic to the idea that it could be a public domain image, taken from the NPS for use on that Web site. If that's true, then it's a public domain image. If that's not true, then it's under the copyright cited. Either way we've done the right thing in asserting our fair use of the image for reference purposes in a specific article. -Harmil 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you site the source, owner, and presumed copyright does not automatically make an image qualify for a fair use exception. Also, the fact that this photo may or may not be PD doesn't really have any bearing on a fair use exception. I believe this falls under counterexample #2 from WP:FU. While the image might be permissible if you were using it for critical commentary on the museum, it is not permissible in the Two flue harpoon article. --Hetar 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that an image, used to illustrate a topic on a museum site cannot be used on Wikipedia under fair use doctrine to illustrate the exact same topic? The rose example on WP:FU certainly does not imply this (since a rose taken from an album cover is obviously taken far out of context). If you can get the community to agree that all images from museums on Wikipedia which are not about the museums, then I'll certianly have to accept that decision, but that would eliminate THOUSANDS of images, and I've never heard of anyone suggesting such. -Harmil 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please do respond on my talk page. I watch about 300 pages these days, and the chance that I'll just happen to notice an edit on your talk page is VERY low. Thanks. -Harmil 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: You have reverted a change to Image:Twoflue 2.GIF which was made by Zscout370, an administrator who made that change, after having reviewed my concerns about your tagging of the image. His comment at the time was, "the copyright information is clearly provided." I kind of feel frustrated here, since I specifically asked to have my fair use rationale evaluated, assuming that that was the right thing to do, and yet had I not done so, the image would still be in the state that I initially put it in, as (just for example) is Image:Ias-comp.jpg, another image from a museum, used to illustrate the topic of a museum exhibit, not the museum itself. -Harmil 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the change because the administrator did not apply a copyright tag. The nld tag specifically says that it should not be removed until a copyright tag has been added. I am going to tag this image for review and let the community decide what to do with it. --Hetar 03:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so your concern isn't that I didn't add copyright information, but that I didn't use a pre-defined template to do so? -Harmil 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't believe the image qualifies for fair use in the article, otherwise I would have simply tagged it myself. --Hetar 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, can you explain why you think that? So far, I feel as if I'm defending my actions against an unknown transgression. If you can formalize your concern, perhaps we could come to an understanding? At first, you said that you thought "I believe this falls under counterexample #2 from WP:FU". I think I've sufficiently refuted that in that counterexample #2 clearly goes out of its way to illustrate the usage of an image out of context. Then you said, "I reverted the change because the administrator did not apply a copyright tag," and yet there is clear copyright information on the page. Wikipedia suggests the use of copyright tags where they are helpful, but there are cases (and I think this is clearly one) where it is more helpful to spell out the exact nature of the copyright in question. WP:COPY says, "Image description pages can be tagged with a special tag to indicate the legal status of the images." Please note the use of the word, "can". If an image description page meets the requirements for legal status notification, there's no need to use a template which is less accurate than the description. Now you simply say, "I don't believe the image qualifies for fair use" This isn't much for me to go on, so I can't respond with any kind of reasonable defense of the image.

Aren't there some mis-used album covers out there that would merit more attention than the attempt to illustrate a harpoon using an image from a national museum? -Harmil 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All images must have a copyright tag. Even if it is just a generic fairusein. Anyway, I merely mentioned that because of your complaint about one of my pervious reversions. I do not agree that you have refuted #2. Also, please see the discussion at WP:PUI. Apparently there are free alternatives available, which would completely destroy any fair use rationale. --Hetar 16:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hetar, I still need step-by-step help

Hetar, you answered my question on the Village Pump as per the following dialogue:

The article Cooling tower has a photo which is fairly tall. I want to crop it shorter by about 15% and then use the "Upload a new version of this file". The file was contributed by someone else and it is licensed as GNU FDL.

When I crop it and upload it as a new version of the file, must I select a license option again? Must I first delete the old version? Or what? Please let me know how to do it, step-by-step. Thanks, - mbeychok 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the upload a new version link, you don't need to supply any new copyright information, the old tag will still be applied. --Hetar 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to alter an image if you license it under the GNU FDL yourself. Personally, I would keep both versions and give them different names. Anyone who does edits at WP:FPC does it that way and it allows people to use whatever image they like best. Deleting the old one is a big no no. You need to leave a nice paper trail to the original creator even if you upload it with the same name. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, your answer seems to conflict with the answer from User:MacGyverMagic. Are you sure that you are correct? Please note that I said the photo now in Cooling tower was uploaded and licensed by someone else. I copied the photo to my hard disc and then cropped it shorter about 15%. I want to upload the cropped version and replace the original photo now in Cooling tower with my cropped version. Please tell me in step-by-step detail how to do that and stay in compliance with Wikipedia licensing policies. Please. - mbeychok 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore what Mgm said. His response covers stuff that you weren't even asking about (no one said anything about deleting any images) and is confusing. Sometimes I wish he would just leave help desk questions that already have a response alone. -End Rand- Ok, so let me step things out for you:

Goto Image:Didcot power station cooling tower zootalures.jpg.
Click on the link that says upload a new version of this file.
Choose your source and destination file names.
Leave the summar field blank.
Leave the Licensing set to none and click on Upload.
If you chose a destination name that was the same as the original file name, click on upload anyway. Otherwise, you can ignore this step.
Your set. When you visit the new image page you will notice that original copyright tag is still in place (which is fine, since that is the appropriate license). You will also notice that a link to the pervious version of the image still shows up, so it can be reverted to in cases of vandalism.
Edit the summary on the Image's page and leave a little note saying how the latest revision was edited by user x on date x in program x for cropping.

If you have more questions, please drop by again :) --Hetar 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very, very much, Hetar. That is exactly what I needed. - mbeychok 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.

Hello! I see that my edits were removed and I wanted you to know that I apologize for breaking the rules. I did not intend to, as I actually felt that since I offer a different kind of singing telegram that I was contributing additional interesting information to the subject, but it did appear overly self-promotional and I can't say that I didn't make it look that way. But, really, I thought I was contributing something of interest, but that is obviously subjective and I was wrong. Same with my removed additions to the hymn page, I felt that what I do is an interesting facet to hymns and I do have hymn information links on my site, therefore, I did think that I was just contributing. Anyway, I'm not just a spammer, I really apologize, and I did not mean to be so promotional--well, I can't say that, I made it appear that way, but I didn't mean to spam, I thought I was sharing interesting info. My bad. Sorry you had to clean it up. --Nancykestie 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to add a picture to an article?

--Vashthestampede 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Do you know how to add a picture to an article?[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Hetar for your kind words regarding my Lindisfarne photo. I live on the bay, and will endeavour to provide some more photos of Lindisfarne and Hobart in general. I'm new to uploading images on Wikipedia, so please excuse any early blunders. I am not sure for instance what loading to the "commons" means. Perhaps you could enlighten me (though I will endeavour to find out by myself). I must say that learning to edit the Wikipedia is a bit of a steep learning curve for me.....but very enjoyable. Cheers, Phil.

Thanks for the further info, very helpful. I have made an account on the commons, have loaded that Lindisfarne image and will now search around for some more that may be useful. I will also endeavour to remember to sign my posts, voila! ;-) --Phil Wardle 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Animals

Good - so merge it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Wasn't that your job, as the closing administrator, to implement the consensus reached? Or are you just too lazy to do that? --Hetar 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your questions are No and WP:NPA respectively. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Photography and Entries

hi I am Phreakdigital 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) and you recently talked at me about my Image:Wrights Lake.jpg and that you liked it and were considering it for a featured picture, but I thought that some of my recent submissions are much better than this and add to articles in a greater way. perhaps Image:Bassi Falls.jpg or Image:Horsetail Falls Tahoe.jpg I am a photographer in Sacramento, CA and plan to upload many of my photos into the public domain here on wikipedia.org, but learning the right way to add content can be challenging...I also do a lot of climbing and hiking, and I want to add information about mountains to climb in the Sierra Nevada...I have added Mt. Conness and added significantly to Pyramid Peak (California)...tell me what you think about my entries and what I could do differently as I will most likely be adding possibly 20 more in the near future.[reply]

featured image criterium

I see what you mean...you may wish to see

http://www.photo.net/photos/Mike_Grindstaff

an online portfolio

Tower Bridge Image

i dont have a lot of information about the bridge itself, but I created an entry with the obvious info and an image - Phreakdigital 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]