User talk:Ilse@/archive

Welcome!

Hello, Ilse@/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 03:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Nederlander

Hoi. Ik zie dat je een plaatje van Rotterdam heb geupload. Hopelijk volgen er nog veel meer. Als je iets wil weten, geef maar een gil. Mgm|^(talk) 01:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re:AfD

Hi, I saw you listed Age of Reason for deletion. I checked the history of the article, and it appears to have been blanked by an anon. Make sure in the future to check the history of blank articles, it may have been erased as an act of vandalism. I undid the blanking, so it should be ok. In light of this, I'm requesting that the Afd be withdrawn.

On a different note, in cases of an obvious deletion (i.e. blank articles, like this one) you can list it as a speedy deletion, as it falls under the criteria within Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You don't need to list the page on Afd or anything. The page is simply listed in a backlog constantly reviewed by administrators, so it should be deleted within a few minutes.

If you do have to list a page for deletion on Afd, it's best to create a new page for the article's listing instead of adding it to another article's, as you added Age of reason's Afd to the page for Confusion the Waitress.

It's not much of a big deal, these things happen often, so tell me if you have any more questions or comments.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think about this. Sorry. Ilse@ 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's taken care of ;). Thanks for being bold, though. We all risk screwing up while editing, I've made my share of mistakes here.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD

You have previously edited an article about Anne Frank - I wonder whether you would be interested in passing comment on this AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Frank%27s_cats Robertsteadman 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I commented on this AfD. Ilse@ 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Soldier of Orange

Give it a cast section and then you can make it Start. It's definately not B though. Cbrown1023 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do so. - Ilse@ 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Total Recall

Thanks. I understand that there is no agreed structure to the infobox and thought it would be best to put them in order of the credits which would put Ronny Cox bottom as it is difficult to figure out who is the third major character (him, Sharon Stone or Michael Ironside) and as the credits had him listed as 'and' I thought it would be best to put this in the box. If you think this is incorrect then feel free to revert. (Quentin X 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

I saw you reverting it several times. I don't have a big problem with the "and", but I think it will be removed again by someone... Ilse@ 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub Categories

Hi, I notice you've created a number of stub articles recently. It'd be helpful if you could use specific stub categories for these articles, such as {{NorthHolland-geo-stub}}. A full list of stub categories can be found here. Jeodesic 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will keep this in mind. - Ilse@ 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ruud lubbers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ruud lubbers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tussenvoegsel

Hi! I saw you changed the way of sorting in categories of the Dutch actors and actresses. Please take into account that when sorting Dutch names by surname, the so-called tussenvoegsels like de, van der, ter, etcetera are being ignored. I therefore had to revert your changes. Regards, Tubantia 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the Dutch general rules, there is policy on the ordering of names in categories for the English Wikipedia. Best regards, Ilse@ 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I re-reverted everything. Best regards, Tubantia 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oeps

Had never clicked on my talk page link before today, hence I just noticed your left a message ten weeks ago. For what it is worth, my apologies for this late reply. Fixings 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub templates moved by AWB

Why do you move stub templates? - Ilse@ 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get used to this. Nareklm 22:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? - Ilse@ 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Its my first time using this program. Nareklm 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I noticed that you moved several stub templates to the end of articles, so I thought there was maybe some rationale for this. - Ilse@ 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that. Nareklm 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. - Ilse@ 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Borat

Saw the comments. Will attempt to make corrections. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your username

Hi Ilse@, are you aware of WP:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames (usernames containing "@" are no longer allowed)? You may wish to consider changing your username. Regards. —Moondyne 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I says that users are no longer allowed to register names with a "@", but existing usernames are not blocked. - Ilse@ 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but they are encouraged to change names, which is what I suppose I am doing to you ;). I suspect there may be some issues when the Wikimedia single login system [1] kicks in (if it ever happens). I'm not hassling you you, just letting you know about it. (I also had a username with an @ and chose to change it a few months back). —Moondyne 13:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth

Thanks for your edits on Aquinas College, Perth -- much appreciated. But do you know how to fix up the references with no names on them in the reference section - i have all of the info on the talk page to the article if you need it. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 09:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure as to why you have removed the link to the main article of the Public Schools Association - my reasoning for having it there is that about 95% of all sport that is played at Aquinas is in the Public Schools Association league so i think that the link to that particular article is nescessary as it is extremely relvant. Smbarnzy 12:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ilse =) you seem to be pretty with it, so i was wondering if you could review my article on Aquinas College, Perth at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquinas College, Perth/archive4 , I have spent a considerable amount of time on this article and have been lacking in the feedback dept. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 12:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I will consider it. - Ilse@ 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Book

Your welcome!--Supernumerary 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mt Henry Peninsula

What do you think would be an appropriate tag for Image:Mount Henry Peninsula.jpg ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Symode09 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

If you remove the sentence May be used for educational usage only it is ok, because copies may also be sold commercially. - Ilse@ 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth

Thanks so much for your pointers on the article - they are very much appreciated. I have followed all of what you said it was wonderful - except im not sure about the gallery - i want to keep it - i admit it is a bit cheap and tacky - but it provides other images that the article wouldnt otherwise have and it gives the reader a better insight to the college as a whole. Is there anything i can do to make it better, so we can keep it and be a G/A? thanks Smbarnzy 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i was also wondering how to re-do the starter bit at the top of the page - as to what you meant by it - i am a bit confuzzled. Smbarnzy 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! thanks for the help with the images, i fixed them all up so wiki is all happy chappy and all :) thanks for the pointers, much appreciated. if there is anything else you can see wrong, please tell us, thanks! Smbarnzy 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Black Book (film)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ilse@! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the revert. You're correct, the bot shouldn't revert citations, and it's programmed not to, but the way the template was written prevented the bot from detecting it. I've corrected the error. Thanks for letting me know! Shadow1 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. - Ilse@ 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put the reference back in, again. - Ilse@ 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Time-Substitution comments at User talk:Anthony cfc

Hi there; I posted a reply to your post regarding my signature time substitution at my talk page a while ago, but you probably didn't notice so here's a reminder. Please note that I'm deleting all the comments on my talk page; my reply is located here, or alternatively a link is available at the bottom of my current talk page version.

My apologies if I have bitten here - I'm not feeling to great.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy Paste

Wow! You've been busy! I think that there should be a simple bot operated way to solve this, but anyway cudos for spending several hours pressing copy+paste! C mon 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Neelie Kroes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Neelie Kroes.jpg. 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. 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts assessments

Please do not remove Visual arts banners from articles, as you did with Augustus John. Any other ones I see will just be reverted (if inappropriate). You are not a member of the VA project & I have raised the question on the project talk-page of whether you should be doing VA project assessments. Your editing record suggests little experience of VA articles. You also seem to taking less than 30 seconds to assess an article, which is not long enough to actually read most of them. Johnbod 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I have not made (many) more mistakes as the one you mentioned above. I thought the Visual arts project needed the assessment of articles. Assessment of Start-class and Stub-class articles is in my opinion a matter of applying the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment guidelines, not of experience in the field of writing articles about Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you believe I have made wrong judgements, please let me know. - Ilse@ 12:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. We do need assessments certainly. I think you are not making allowances for different subjects, especially between articles on individual works & those on artists. A B-class article on an individual painting will normally be much shorter than one on an artist, if the assessment criteria are followed. Also you are placing the WP Biography banner over the VA one, which is inappropriate for people known only as artists. The more specialized VA banner should take precedence, then any country etc banner, then biography. Johnbod 12:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally I agree. Could you give an example of an article that is obviously underassessed as you have described? - Ilse@ 12:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't automatically agree on banner precedence, though. - Ilse@ 12:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio), Bacchus and Ariadne for examples. Why don't you agree on the banners? WP Biography is huge, & few "bio" editors ever write artist articles (fortunately perhaps), which are nearly always maintained by VA people. Johnbod 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that both articles are more towards B-class than others Start-class articles. Although I could also argue that Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio) needs some serious work before it is B-class: it needs to be well structured in sections for readability, it lacks a key section on critical acclaim, the quote is far too long and can easily be paraphrased; I think these things are not 'just' GA qualities. Would you be satisfied if I added such summaries with assessment in the future? - Ilse@ 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments in edit summaries are always helpful. Neither article is perfect by any means but I think they both meet the B criteria in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. With stuff this old much of the information that would normally be expected does not exist. I don't think I have ever edited either btw. Johnbod 13:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that information does not exist does not contribute to the quality of an article. I think that, on most occasions, for famous paintings information on critical acclaim can be found, since these items are discussed in art literature over the centuries. - Ilse@ 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

critical acclaim is not an appropriate term for old master art, though of course there is plenty of critical discussion, but no Oscars. Johnbod 14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant: for what reasons do people like the work of art. - Ilse@ 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam-related articles

I want to thank you for all your recent edits and new articles related to Amsterdam. If there's anything I can do to help, drop a note on my talk page. --User:Krator (t c) 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Ilse@ 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdammertje

On 10 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amsterdammertje, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

lol :) volgende stop: Wikiproject Amsterdam?? Ik schrijf graag mee over de Elandsgracht, Hartenstraat, en Reguliersdwarsstraat... valt een boel over te vertellen lijkt me... JACOPLANE • 2007-04-10 23:25

I agree that some collaboration for Amsterdam-related articles could be useful, but I have no intention to maintain a Wikiproject myself. - Ilse@ 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you should, perhaps I'll set up a task-force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands (although that project is rather dead). Mainly I just thought that your article on the "Amsterdammertje" was cool. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-11 17:05

Thank you for the compliment. I will think about your suggestion. – Ilse@ 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Book (film) GA review

One of the articles that you worked on, Black Book (film), is currently under GA review. I think it just needs the plot to be reworked and copyedited. Please address this so the film can be removed from the GA review. Thanks for your hard work! --Nehrams2020 05:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coat of arms of Amsterdam

The article Coat of arms of Amsterdam you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Coat of arms of Amsterdam for things needed to be addressed. LordHarris 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Coat of arms of Amsterdam you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Coat of arms of Amsterdam for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. LordHarris 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Amsterdam - found something interesting

Found this while looking for references for Amsterdam.

From http://www.bma.amsterdam.nl/adam/uk/intro/gesch1.html

"Relatively speaking, Amsterdam is a late developer. Even though archaeologists recovered Roman coins from the Amsterdam soil, these desolate regions were largely uninhabited during the period we call Classical Antiquity. The first settlers came to Holland in the 9th and 10th centuries, at the time of the first reclamations. We do not know when the first settlers came to the area round the mouth of the river Amstel. Amsterdam’s infancy survives only in legends. One such legend has it that two men and a dog found a dry and fertile piece of land to live on after surviving a shipwreck. 'The legend found its way to Amsterdam's original coat of arms, the koggeschip (cargo ship). Many versions of this coat of arms show two men and a dog."

--User:Krator (t c) 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark, I think it is worth the effort checking this out. – Ilse@ 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Youp van 't Hek

Hi, I speedy deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Best to keep on your word processor until it's ready for editing. Jimfbleak.talk. jimfbleak 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buckler (beer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Business Is Business

On 10 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Business Is Business, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision images

Hi Ilse@,

I have commented on the fair use rationale for the images in the Eurovision article. Thank you for pointing out the fact that the rationales had not been specifically commented. EuroSong ^talk 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There were more bad edits than good ones. I will go through everything later, at a calmer time, and see if there were good ones. EuroSong ^talk 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should revert edits in articles like that. – Ilse@ 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lubbers prodi handshake.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lubbers prodi handshake.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

I noticed you've been changing the defaultsort of many names with independent prefixes. The Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline on this was the uninformed edit of a single (Belgian) person hellbend on keeping it that way, presumably because that's how it's done in Belgium. In my hopelessly frustrating discussion on that page he/she was supported once by one other person and no one else got involved. It conflicts with all English language encyclopedias, the Chicago Manual of Style, the Library of Congress authorities recommendation, and the great majority of wikipedia entries (at least before you started reverting things ;-). Sorting or not sorting by the prefixes (usually simply meaning "of") should, according to e.g. the manual of style, be applied according to the country of origin, though emigrees to English speaking countries, including multilingual countries like South Africa and Canada, are usually sorted by prefixes as well. Afasmit 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, in Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category (Wikipedia guideline) I read: "People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", "van der", etc... after the rest of the last name." – Ilse@ 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read it wrong. I'm trying to tell you that that "rule" (guideline really) was written down, just like anything else in wikipedia, by an editor like you or me (the one I mentioned above), not by some authority. In this case it was a single editor who did not even write after a consensus was derived by people who happened to be interested in that subject at that time, which is the preferred way these guidelines are written up. He/she sneaked it in (it went unnoticed for months) andhas since been very defensive about any changes on that page. Check the Categorization of people discussion page for my feeble and aborted attempt to change it (and some other hapless folks who ran into his/her track). The "rule" should be changed to one followed by all the authoritive publications I mentioned above. Afasmit 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The sorting of Josquin des Prez as Josquin falls under the exception to the sorting rules that allows Augustine of Hippo to be sorted as Augustine rather than Hippo. Lots of medieval and renaissance names are sorted in this way. You need to know on a case by case basis whether the second name is a description or if it is treated as a surname. In Josquin's case it is treated as a description. (in response to your reply to Afasmit -- there are also exceptions notes to the ordering of names for van, etc; note Beethoven, not van Beethoven). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. With non-modern names, you do not automatically sort them as you would in a modern phone book: Lassus, not De Lassus; Lantins, not De Monte. Then there are yet other exceptions: Jacopo da Bologna is alphabetized under J, not D (or B). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanations. Personally, I prefer the form "Basten, Marco van" for sorting the articles. If there is indeed consensus with only one opponent, I would like to see this reflected in the guideline. If the guideline is not changed, these edits are not unlikely to be made again in the future. – Ilse@ 09:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually started the discussion a few months back after another person had changed a bunch of defaultsorts pointing to the guideline. As the discussion was just between three people, one of which only chimed in at the end, saying that remembering foreign rules is too hard on wikipedia readers trying to find a name (while apparently this is not the case for anyone using printed encyclopedias etc.), there was no chance for a consensus to arise and all I could do was start a revert war (which I didn't). A while back I did an analysis that supports the de facto use of the encyclopedia/style manual/authorities standards by wikipedia users, which is another argument to rewrite the guideline. I don't have time right now, but in a week or two I'll start the discussion again and let you know so you can participate.

In the meantime, would you mind reverting your edits? Thanks very much. Afasmit 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to wait until the guideline is changed conform a concensus. – Ilse@ 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

About Image:UCL2007Final.jpg

I added a fair use rationale and reduced the resolution. Is it ok now?--KaragouniS 10:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes much better. I further specified the purpose of the image. Could you maybe specify the source of the image? – Ilse@ 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, I added the full link ( http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/photo/competitions/ucl/476716_bigportrait.jpg ).--KaragouniS 10:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. – Ilse@ 10:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

My pleasure! C mon 09:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

yep yep --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CNN image

I know you couldn't, which is why I didn't complain directly to you. --Golbez 10:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, rephrase: I didn't complain, I simply stated the fact to point out why I was doing what I did. I didn't upload the image, but that's the tag the uploader would have used, and I was explaining why. :) --Golbez 10:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-) – Ilse@ 10:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale

Thanks for the tip. I somehow figured that an article name and website URL were enough. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Eurlings.jpg

Image:Eurlings.jpg is copyrighted by the European Parliament [2]. However the EP allows any reproduction when source is acknowledged.[3]. This is fair use, but I cannot find a good alternative template to use. Should one be created for images sourced to the EP? Intangible2.0 12:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A non-free portrait image of a living person is considered to be replaceable fair use, and is therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. See example 8 on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. Generally the template for a fair use rationale is {{non-free media rationale}}. – Ilse@ 12:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The image can be reproduced when source (EP) is acknowledged. I do not claim that a fair use template should be used here for the picture. Intangible2.0 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When reproduction is allowed when the source is acknowledged, this means that modification is not automatically permitted. I read on Image:Eurlings.jpg: "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free license since modification is not permitted. This image must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria, or it may be deleted." – Ilse@ 13:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, modification is not allowed. But this is a legal problem for fair use images as well, not? There are other images as well for which this is a problem, see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:EU_image. Maybe it is best to have a central discussion on this to deal with this all in once? I think the image still serves an informational purpose, that is why I would like to have it included, even if it does not come with a GFDL or likewise license. Yes, one can search for Eurlings via Google Images and find many pictures of him. But a DVD copy of Wikipedia is still allowed to include it, and not everyone using such a DVD copy will be necessarily connected to the Internet. Intangible2.0 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is not free, therefore it should have a fair use template, as {{EU image}} already mentions. Fair use portraits of living people are generally not alowed on Wikipedia. I don't think it matters that it is used for informational purposes. Wouldn't most fair use portraits be used for informational purposes? – Ilse@ 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a way to solve the problem. Cheers. Intangible2.0 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image rationale

Done. It think there wasn't a fair use rationale policy here on August 2006. Machocarioca 07:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

The image was uploaded with the template {{Promotional}}, and in August 2006 the text of this template already mentions a fair use rationale. – Ilse@ 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Balkenende de hoop scheffer signing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Balkenende de hoop scheffer signing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Turkish Delight DVD cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish Delight DVD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image rationale

I have added a fair-use rationale for Image:Ciskederat.jpg. Please let me know, if this is not sufficient. Greetings. --Muziekfan 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale should explain why this image of Danny de Munk as the character Ciske de rat is included in the article Danny de Munk. I think this book cover can be used in an article about the books about Ciske de rat, but I am not sure about the article about Danny de Munk. Please note that fair use portraits of living people are generally not allowed on Wikipedia. For more information please read the section with examples of unacceptable use of non-free content on Wikipedia:Non-free content. – Ilse@ 10:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I already considered writing an article about the book and film which I'll write today. Then I remove the image from the article about the actor. Perhaps I can also find a free image of the (grown-up) actor, although he is mainly known as a child actor. I have also seen other fair-Use images of living people here. Is a fair-use film screenshot better than a book cover? --Muziekfan 12:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You should not add a fair use image of Danny de Munk when it serves merely as a portrait to identify him. – Ilse@ 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created Ciske de Rat and made a redirect from Ciske the Rat (film) as both films are mentioned here. Later they can split into 2 articles. I'm sorry, if my english is not perfect. I could upload a film poster or record cover, which is nearly the same as the book cover with additional picture of the film. There are a lot of fair-use pictures here, and it says on Non-free content page, that it is not set in stone and it's an essay. The goal of the image is to show the book and the character, like in other articles. --Muziekfan 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use?

Hi, I'm a little confused about your message re Image:Arthurqbryan.jpg. It was uploaded nearly two years ago, and at the time, the understand, from what I read and the labels, was that all screenshots (which is what the image was, and is categorized as) were considered fair use. Mind, I'm mostly active on Muppet Wiki now, so maybe I missed some community discussion I'm just confused as to what "rationale" I'm expected to add to that (though there is the further fact that it comes from a public domain film). -- Aleal 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently all images uploaded as "fair use" should have a fair use rationale that explains why the image may be used on Wikipedia for each article. I checked the old template at the time you uploaded the image, and it seems this was not required back then. If the film is indeed in the public domain, the image is not fair use and no rationale is required. – Ilse@ 08:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

• Since every bit of the information requested for a fair use rationale was already included in the image description and the boilerplate template on Image:Still from Baseball Bugs.jpg it seems like just applying whatever format you think is appropriate would be a more efficient wikiproject than seeking out all the original uploaders to nag them and engaging in a big removal process. --Dystopos 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you'd be surprised how many fair use images on Wikipedia don't have good purpose of use descriptions. A purpose of use description should not only say it illustrates an article, since all images in articles are used for illustration. Therefore the purpose of use description should mention why the image is used in a particular (section of an) article. A good purpose of use description for Image:Still from Baseball Bugs.jpg in this case would be "To identify the main characters in the cartoon Baseball Bugs in the article Baseball Bugs." – Ilse@ 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, your proposed rationale misrepresents the purpose of the image. The real purpose of the image is, in fact, to illustrate the article. The identification of the main characters is easily made in the text. The visual style of the cartoon is not, hence the illustration. --Dystopos 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's suppose you are right, shouldn't then all copyrighted images be allowed to illustrate articles on Wikipedia? – Ilse@ 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said that fair use doesn't have to be justified. I said that the elements of the rationale were already present in the image description and in the boilerplate fair use template (the screenshot template was intended, when it was first created, as a means of explaining the fair use rationale for screenshots). The Template:needs rationale was therefore, in my opinion, misapplied. If the formatting or specificity of the rationale did not meet your expectations, it would have been easier and more effective to have reformatted it yourself than to apply big red nag-boxes. --Dystopos 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think {{needs rationale}} was misapplied. The template {{Non-free film screenshot}} says explicitly "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use". And in my opinion, fair use images that illustrate an article for no particular reason should be deleted. – Ilse@ 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That request was added to the template in February 2006, a month after the image was uploaded. I still don't see any use for the image other than to illustrate the article. Where would I find appropriate fair use rationales in use that are more specific? --Dystopos 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The image could easily be used in an article about baseball, pin-up girls, or Bugs Bunny. You claim that all info was in the original image description, which is not true for the purpose of use. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with your last changes and I think the fair use rationale is well formulated in a way we can both agree on it now. – Ilse@ 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's not true. The rationale that was part of the screenshot template I applied explicitly stated that images could be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" and explains why that would be permitted under Wikipedia policy. I still don't see where that rationale is deficient. The template that you applied stated that the image "has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy." That is incorrect. -- Perhaps the message to uploaders should be "due to changes in Wikipedia policy since this image was uploaded, the explanation for how it can be used under Fair Use needs to be made more specific. I have attempted to elaborate on the Fair Use rationale, which you can review at Image:Still from Baseball Bugs.jpg. Just a suggestion. --Dystopos 16:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in {{needs rationale}} is: "Note that boilerplate fair use templates do not by themselves constitute a sufficient explanation as to why an image is permitted." I believe you uploaded the image with the best intentions, and I also think the use of the image is permitted. I only asked you to state why it is permitted. – Ilse@ 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And I saw your attempt "to elaborate on the Fair Use rationale" and was speaking about this when I wrote "I am satisfied with your last changes and I think the fair use rationale is well formulated " – Ilse@ 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the notice that ""boilerplate fair use templates do not by themselves constitute a sufficient explanation as to why an image is permitted.". The language of the screenshot template was every bit as specific as any reasonable rationale for the use of a screenshot on an article about the film in question. In fact, that is why the screenshot template (and its siblings) were created in the first place. They do, in my opinion, present a sound rationale for the normal uses of screenshots, book covers and the like. A different rationale would only be needed if the image were used for some other purpose. --Dystopos 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline and the templates are open for too many interpretations, though I prefer to be strict in cases of copyrighted material. – Ilse@ 08:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wile E. Coyote

Please see now description at Image:Ethelbert.jpg. Thanks, --Tenebrae 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ok now. – Ilse@ 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Acrobatty Bunny

Thank you for posting that fair use template. It might come in handy later. I wasn't really sure what to do about it. :) Baseball Bugs 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (formerly User:Wahkeenah)

The fair use rationale is meant to describe why the fair use of a non-free image should be permitted. – Ilse@ 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fair use logo

Since the logo doesn't qualify fair use when used in other articles, besides the one specifically relating to the French Open, you might need to revert the use of Image:Australian Open.jpg, Image:Wimbledon logo.png and Image:US Open.jpg. I would do it myself, but have to wait 'til morning... --Dark Falls ^talk 12:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal there would be a good idea. I will first continue the removal for the logo of Roland Garros. – Ilse@ 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Could you explain the rationale for removing entire infoboxes from articles simply because they contain fair use images? You do realize you can simply edit the contents of an infobox and remove the image itself, right? - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The infoboxes in Fox News Channel controversies and Fox News Channel programming are not about these specific articles, but they are copies of the infobox in Fox News Channel. Therefore I consider them to be redundant. – Ilse@ 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They are separete articles about Fox News Channel and identify important information about the article's subject, and not everyone reaches a subarticle through the main article. Unless there is a policy/guideline stating this should be done, you really shouldn't be blanking content because you "consider them to be redundant". You especially should not have reverted my change without discussing on the talk page. See the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. - auburnpilot talk 17:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You reverted the articles without discussing yourself. – Ilse@

Again, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In other words, your edit was bold, I reverted it, then we discuss. As the cycle states, "1. Boldly make the desired change to the page. 2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back! 3. Discuss with the reverter (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change." - auburnpilot talk 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I responded in this bold manner. I'd like to ask you to decide what is best for the Fox articles. Best regards, Ilse@ 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

These edits were similar to my edit of CNN controversies some days ago. – Ilse@ 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which, apparently, was also reverted. Please don't continually revert without discussing -- if you notice a pattern where your changes are consistantly reverted, it might be worth considering that you're incorrect. /Blaxthos 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

CNN controversies was reverted after I posted my comment here, and from the talk page of User:Italiavivi you seem to know eachother. Let me repeat myself, I think the infoboxes are redundant, but if you feel they should remain in the articles, it is ok with me. – Ilse@ 13:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is simply that you should participate in discussion instead of just re-reverting, as it could be considered edit warring. /Blaxthos 23:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing this discussion. – Ilse@ 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:ABNtennis.jpg

Thanks for noticing that Image:ABNtennis.jpg was misisng a fair use rationale. I have added one. When you notice that a fair use rationale is missing, please consider adding the rationale yourself, perhaps based on other fair use rationales that you have seen used on similar images. --Eastmain 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done this for several non-free images, but I hope others can help me. – Ilse@ 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Azazel (2009 film)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Azazel (2009 film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Féin logo

Can you stop removing this image, I created this image and it is not the same as the one used by the party, but one I created for use on another wiki.--padraig3uk 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If Image:Sfnew.jpg is the official Sinn Féin logo, you cannot claim authorship when you create a file with the logo, unless you are the original designer of the logo. And still in that case you must have permission of Sinn Féin to release their logo in the public domain. – Ilse@ 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is not the one used by the party, as the map is more detailed on the image I created, I also designed the original logo used by Sinn Féin around 79/81 from which the current image used by the party evolved from.--padraig3uk 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please add this information on the description page of the image? And also whether or not you have permission of Sinn Féin to release the logo in the public domain. Thank you. – Ilse@ 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ilse, this info was including in the image description when I first uploaded it to wikipedia, but another editor uploaded the image from WP to Commons, this lead to the image being deleted from Commons, so the image was removed from WP and I had to upload it again. As for using information on Sinn Féin or its website http://www.sinnfein.ie, I posted a e-mail from Sinn Féin I recieved on the aspect of copyright on material from their site, here which I will post below:

This is a E-mail I recieved from Sinn Fein in regards to use of information from their wedsite, hopefully this will resolve any copy-right issues.--Padraig3uk 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Hi Padraig,

Any information on our website www.sinnfein.ie is in the public domain and its contents can be reproduced.

Regards,

Sinn Féin Web Team

On 03/02/2006 23:43, "patrick" <xxxxxx@btinternet.com> wrote:

Original Message to Sinn Fein:

I'am a moderator on this wiki, http://politics.ie/wiki/, and I have been

ask to enquire about the issue of copyright in regards to information

used in the wiki, regarding Sinn Fein, or the party elected

representatives, as alot of this info was obtained from the Sinn Fein

website.

So I would be grateful if you could let me know if its ok for us to use

this info.

Yours Thankfully.

Padraig

--padraig3uk 12:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For me it is not clear whether the use of their logo is considered to fall under "information". I think you best add this email again to the image description page. – Ilse@ 12:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Féin does claim copyright in the bottom on every page of their website. – Ilse@ 12:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be standard practice on the majority of web-sites and usually inserted by the web designer, but I doubt if any political party would object to the use of its material on other sites unless it is used to attack the party concerned, political parties want to promote their message and policies, the same applies to images of politicans, I doubt any party or politican would object to any use of their image.--padraig3uk 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiny Toons image

Ilse, Thanks for your concern on a Tiny Toons image, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you further on the Tiny Toons Talk page at your earliest convienience. Thanks again, Gak Blimby 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the talk setup is ready. Gak Blimby 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick response and willingness to compromise on the Tiny Toons image. I hope the article gets much better too. Thanks again, Gak Blimby 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GroenLinks images

I don't think depicting electoral campaigns meets fair use of political posters. I guess one has to assert (rightfully) that these images are used to identify the GreenLeft at different stages of its history to meet fair use. C mon 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if a section is about the particular election campaign? – Ilse@ 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But for the GreenLeft article the sections are about historical stages, not particular campaigns. C mon 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the posters should then be deleted, non-free images should not merely be decorative but they need to "significantly increase [the] readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" (see WP:NFCC #8). Maybe Image:Kees Vendrik and Femke Halsema.jpg can replace the 2006 election poster is in the GreenLeft article. – Ilse@ 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They show the change of the party in the way it presents itself (the image it seeks) and who led it, in a way that words cannot. C mon 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should state that in the fair use rationale? – Ilse@ 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rembrandt

Thanks for asking re: the lead paragraph. I can understand why you deleted the sentence, which seems to belong in the Golden Age article, yet I wonder if the information doesn't furnish a fuller context, a backdrop to his life and work--Rembrandt was pretty much the pinnacle of the Dutch Golden Age. It can work either way. Cheers, JNW 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Paycheck

Done. You know it'd be a lot easier for everyone if when you upload a screenshot it gives a automatic detailed rationale by default. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a rationale. Not all screenshots are allowed on Wikipedia. Screenshots should not merely decorate an article, but should contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the article's topic. This contribution should be described and determined for every article. – Ilse@ 22:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilse@/fairuse

Wow, User:Ilse@/fairuse is extremely useful! Thanks for making this. I'll be pointing newbies to this when they seem like they don't understand fair-use rationales but would like to. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments. I tried to address the things that seemed to be wrong in many fair use rationales. I didn't want to link the bad examples, but these were copied from actual rationales. Maybe and if other users agree, we could this use it in the Wikipedia or Help namespace to clarify things. – Ilse@ 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Safari 3.0 Windows Beta.png

As the image is not mine, I am not sure as to what else to include in the image description. I can't think of anything to expand on from what is already written there and I don't know how the uploaders computer is set up. --Lakeyboy 10:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two other non-free screenshots in the Safari article. I think this screenshot is put in to show the Windows version of Safari, but it does not give much information other than that the two versions look very similar. I believe the rationale should explain the significance. – Ilse@ 10:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

American manual alphabet image

The X in the American manual alphabet does not move, but it does in LSF (French Sign Language). Cwterp 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for letting me know. – Ilse@ 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Basic Instrict 001

I shrinked'ed it. If you still feel it's not sufficiently low res, can you give a pixel number or something that'd satisfy you? Cheers, WilyD 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR

If you wish to notify every editor on Wikipedia of this FAR, go ahead, I don't mind. It's just you're contacting people who probably don't remember dealing with the article nor care and will probably be irritated to have a note drop on their page. Certainly when I get notices about articles I have interacted with once in a minor way I find it more annoying than a good opportunity to do some more work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I only notified the users that voted on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Austin Nichols, so I don't understand why you say this... – Ilse@ 00:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Most people who look at FACs read the article, vote, and then forget about it. How much experience do you actually have with the FA process, out of interest? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good thing when more people commented on the featured article review. I posted only short messages on their talk pages. I don't think any harm is done when they are indeed not interested. I will leave the discussion for now and will come back to it in a few days. – Ilse@ 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

fair use noob

why don't you put the rationale info yourself instead of tagging these files? you came here two weeks or something ago and your work is not constructive nor significant and seems like vandalism like if you were hoping that no rationale is added so the picture is deleted. i noticed your contributions consist of adding warning tag, what's your point? is it for revenge maybe? i noticed the fist message you received on your talk page was a tag warning. why don't you help people instead of posting tags? why are there no such rationale on Star Wars' pictures for example? it's like your are focused on Blade Runner, what for? Cliché Online 09:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added fair use rationales myself. Because many people don't add them, I think it is usefull to notify them about the fact they should explain why these images qualify as fair use. Blade Runner is a featured article, so its non-free images are supposed to have fair use rationales. – Ilse@ 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't replied to your statement "you came here two weeks or something ago", but I would like to mention that you are wrong here. And I already tagged this Star Wars image Image:SWcastphoto.jpg on June 15. – Ilse@ 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PurpleRain

I added a rationale to Image:Prince PurpleRainMovie.jpg. Please remove the tag if possible. Johnnyfog 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale question

Hi. What is a fair use rational? What do you mean by that? Chaldean 22:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Devils 1982 1983 team photo.jpg

Sorry about that, I must have mis-read it. It was late and I was tired, so yea. Sorry. Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Rotterdamochtendmist.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Rotterdamochtendmist.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pepsidrinka 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

The guideline for sorting surnames with independent prefixes has been changed, without me getting involved in fact. The current rule, a rule of thumb to sort by the first capital, got some approval by a few other wikipedians and can be considered a consensus (much more so than the original rule at least). The resulting order is also very close to that followed by other encyclopedias, libraries and standard style guides, which basically try to follow the "local" rules. Thus, Dutch people are not sorted by the prefixes in their surnames. Perhaps you could now consider reverting your many defaultsort edits of May 24/25? Thanks Afasmit 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I will get to back to the sorting in some time. - Ilse@ 09:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Churches in Amsterdam

Hi, I'm writing to you in English because I'm not 100% sure that you're Dutch. Could you add your opinion to Talk:Noorderkerk regarding the renaming of the names of the churches in Amsterdam to English-language equivalents? Regards, Jvhertum 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion on the talk page mentioned above is closed, I will give a short reply here: I think the names of the churches should be translated, so the article about the Noorderkerk should have as a title Northern Church, and not North Church. – Ilse@ 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

FYI, Netherlands is currently nominated for the Article Collaboration and Improvement_Drive... you might want to contribute if it gets nominated. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-17 14:29

Thank you for your message. – Ilse@ 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC Peter Canavan

Hey, I added a few quick comments to Golden Film. Would you have a look at the article of Peter Canavan and tell me what you think. He is a player in Gaelic football, an Irish sport that is not well known outside Ireland. I need the perspective of someone from outside Ireland to let me know if it is confusing to someone who has no frame of reference of the subject. It is an FAC, and the comments page is here. --Macca7174_talk 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will take a look at the article soon. – Ilse@ 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

why was the FAC stopped - it was still an active discussion. the last msg was posted a few hours before gimmebot changed it, and that was someone withdrawing their opposition--Macca7174_talk 08:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the reason, although I think the article needs considerable work before it reaches FA class. – Ilse@ 08:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NRC Handelsblad

Hi, do you know which professional databases hosts this newspaper? Thanks -- 172.178.147.37 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No I don't know that, maybe you can ask the newspaper. – Ilse@ 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Hi, I noticed that you cropped an image that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Image:Jan Pronk.jpg. It's better to upload public domain images to commons instead of Wikiepdia so that they can be used in all different language versions of Wikipedia. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-08-20 17:03

Thank you for the notification. – Ilse@ 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jan Pronk

Thanks! The article has improved a lot, since you started focusing on it three days ago. What's your intention with the article? Want to try to get it peer reviewed, after additional references and photo's have been added and may be even featured? C mon 10:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to improve the article based on the to do list. – Ilse@ 07:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Brokeback Mountain was distributed by Focus Features, which is a division of Universal Studios. So Universal would hold the copyright to the image. I prefer faults on front page articles to be fixed and up to scratch and soon as possible! :) Spellcast 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:PMCCTY1.jpg

We have added the following to our wikipedia directory as per suggestions

http://www.personalityphotos.com/wikipedia/license.html

PersonalityPhotos 05:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have posted a reply on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. – Ilse@ 08:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Turgut Özal

I found another picture of him from the website of the govenrment archives but I don't know how to licence it. Please help. Deliogul 09:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The license (under "Licensing") seems ok, unless the source website mentions another license. I tried to fix the rationale. – Ilse@ 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PacinoIn88Minutes01.jpg

Thanks for letting me know, best --Kudret abi 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Elvis stamp

The use in the Elvis Presley article and others are illustrative of the subject (postage stamp) they pertain to. It would help editors and Wikipedians if you addressed your deletion tags on the talk page, so they know whats going on and have reasonable time to address the matter. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC) -Amended: Hi, again. Per you 'need help' - Any help would be possible. My concern is yours - making sure the photos are up to par and used rightly. Your guidance would be welcome. --Northmeister 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my fair use help could assist you in using non-free images for Wikipedia. – Ilse@ 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Northmeister 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Free image removal. Thanks for the letting me know and the removal. Keep up the good work. --Northmeister 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop by Elvis Presley and check out all the photos a second time. We're trying to prepare the article for featured status and considering you interest in photos I would like to know of any problems that might still exist. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted an image review to the talk page of the Elvis Presley article. – Ilse@ 10:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be going over the material soon. --Northmeister 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair Use of Image:Officedvdseason3.png

It was uploaded before the decision to remove the seasons 1 and 2 DVDs, and I only did so because the Season 3 DVD image being used was an out-of-date "Prison Mike" version. I have no problem with the deletion. -- Viewdrix 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. – Ilse@ 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson mug shot

If you view the talk page, Realist2 (the user who deleted the image - I saw you comment on his talk page because I left him a comment there recently and because I have had a few arguments wih him now) had started and been involved in a debate on the mugshot. Just don't try to reason with the guy...he's a Michael Jackson fan with a view to Wikipedia being somewhat favourable towards Jackson...he's frequently come into conflict with people over his overly-biased (in a positive way) views. But many people get abusive so he doesn't respect us disagreeing. Just a little heads up I guess...give up already. He hasn't actually replied to my last message to him since it so convincingly crushed his opinion. (The Elfoid 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Image:Timeallymcbeal.jpg

Instead of putting it up for deletion and ignoring my response and my attempt to discuss your concerns, you might have continued the discussion you initiated on my talk page. This is really not appropriate. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Golden Film FAC

The table is much improved, I might have more suggestions on it after I think on it awhile. I'm still having a problem with:

"The Golden Film was announced on September 4, 2001, at that time as an award for films from the Netherlands that had been seen by a paying audience of 75,000 or more." Sometimes it's OK to use the passive voice, but using it here weakens the entry.

It is an interesting topic, something I had never heard about, what makes it interesting for me is the criticism of it. The article just needs some work, more than just a few edits. Take a step back, compare with some current FAs, get some more research, and ask for suggestions. When you do get suggestions, think about why the reviewer suggested it, because there probably was a good reason. No reviewer will find every major problem either, though most of them are now listed on the article's FA candidacy page. Don't worry if the nom doesn't pass this time around, because wikipedia has no deadline, and we're not in a hurry. Please let me know if you still have questions, I'll be back later today. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the 'announcers'. More suggestions on how the article can be improved are most welcome. – Ilse@ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Devi Mahatmya

Thanks for your comments in the peer review. All the corrections have been made. The peer review has been archived. Please advise in the Talk:Devi_Mahatmya or FAC. --Sankarrukku 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not archive it. It was done by SandyGeorgia. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Devi_Mahatmya&action=history --Sankarrukku 09:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ITFC players FLC

Hey, thanks for your comments at the peer review. Sorry that your comments weren't dealt with adequately there, I failed to archive the PR quick enough - the FLC had started already and I was a fool. However, I'd be glad to receive your further comments, suggestions or (dare I) support at the FLC. Cheers! The Rambling Man 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your further comments. I've responded accordingly. The Rambling Man 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You should have opposed it then and then I would have had no choice but to wait a few days. I didn't take your comments to be anything worth failing the list over, and I felt that they had been addressed. I suggest taking your comments up with the articles nominator, and if they aren't properly addressed in a week or so, then you should nominate it for FLR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And you'll be glad to know all numbers have been validated! Cheers! The Rambling Man 15:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1880 Republican National Convention

It's usually best to have only link to the same name in an article, so that's why I did not link the names in the image captions because they had already been linked elsewhere. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not all instances of words should be wikilinked, but Wikipedia:Captions says "Relevant words in the caption might be Wikilinked". I didn't like to search for the link to the Ulysses Grant article, which is all the way up in the lead, so I linked it. Concerning to wikilinking, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection". In this article I think wikilinking the names in the image captions is justified, but I would also be satisfied with linking the words in the sections apart from the lead. – Ilse@ 02:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'm fine with the links in the captions then. I don't think it's necessary to wikilink more than that, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You have nominated a recent WP:FLC. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient for the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. Voice your thoughts on its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I removed those succession boxes since they're redundant once you add succession templates like {{Feyenoord managers}}. The consensus on WP:FOOTY seems to be not to include both. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 21:05

Hmm, reading over that discussion I think I didn't really understand the consensus correctly. I guess we do keep succession boxes for managers. Sorry, JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 21:09

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

I will work on the issues you brought up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing; the reason why I stuck with using the BRSM in the article, but the title is something different, is that people move it around without me knowing. Also, the transliterated Russian characters result in BRSM. I hope that helps. Anyways, I fixed most of the citation issues (except for one dealing with the organization and their work to stop the spread of AIDS). I hope this all helps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the lead section can be changed to show readers without knowledge of the Belarusian alphabet that BRSM is the abbreviation of "Byelaruski Respublikanski Sayuz Moladzi". – Ilse@ 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That will work. I will make the change now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ilse@, I removed this from FAR per the minimum time between mainpage and review as explained in the instructions at WP:FAR; if issues aren't resolved, you can re-approach FAR after the specified time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. – Ilse@ 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

You are the nominator of a WP:FL that was promoted in the last month. I am inviting you to participate in nominations and voting in a List of the Day experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation. – Ilse@ 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Gimme More

Y All is done except the caption. Please review if its fine and crash out the request. Also, the other screeshot, I think it would be detrimental to remove because it further depicts the nature of the music video (e.g. the two roles used in the video, brunette and blonde Spears). If its not ok, please tell me. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Balzac painting

I wonder if you can explain your reasoning behind switching the color painting at the top of Honoré de Balzac to the black-and-white daguerrotype. I believe that the color image is much more inviting to the reader, and I'd like to switch it back – but I'd rather not do so unilaterally without discussing it first. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the daguerrotype is closer to what Honoré de Balzac looked like. But, for instance in case you have a problem with black and white images, feel free to change it back again. – Ilse@ 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I vote?

It seems I'm the first one there: do I vote on the userpage or on the discussion page? Shouldn't there be two headings:

Support

and

Object

??? Thank you - Happy New Year - Shir-El too 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. For more information about supporting or objecting to featured articles, you best read the section "Supporting and objecting" at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. – Ilse@ 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet FAC

I've replied to your message and would like to know what else needs doing. It would be great to turn your Comment into Support :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead needs some work, I want to think about it a little longer. – Ilse@ 12:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be very interested to read your comments :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the article was already promoted, so I will make some changes myself. – Ilse@ 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Good afternoon. I noticed that you removed an image from Barack Obama, citing a lack of a proper fair use rationale. I had a look at the image, and corrected the error. The image now has rationales for both articles in which it appears. On that basis, I re-added it to the article - but, by all means, if there's any additional steps I need to take to correct any existing problems, please let me know. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I've had another go. How would this language work? "To visually identify the book The Audacity of Hope in the article for which the author is the subject, in the section of the article dealing specifically with the author's literary works, for the purpose of illustrating a prominent example of such works" UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the purpose of use is mere illustration or decoration of the section – all images are also illustration or decoration – the image should be removed. I removed this image from the Barack Obama article before for the same reason. – Ilse@ 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also read my non-free use help. – Ilse@ 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the image may be used in the article under Fair Use, but I don't have a good way to convey that in acceptable fashion using the rationale guidelines you provide. Specifically, I can cover everything except "the image conveys information that is significant for the readers' understanding of the topic of the article". It really doesn't, since the book is sufficiently identified verbally. I've removed the image and rationale, but I'm going to think about it some more. If I replace it, or am able to replace it, I'll let you know. Thanks for your assistance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and understanding. Regrettably, many non-free images used in Wikipedia fail the significance criterion (#8) from the official policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, even in featured articles. If you have any more questions, feel free to let me know. – Ilse@ 09:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wilhelmina and Juliana

Hi Ilse@,

No worries. No, you don't need to worry about archiving the PPR noms. Every week or so either myself or one of the other regular editors there goes through and archives the older noms to keep the page from getting cluttered up. I also leave a note on anything that's actually gone through for a nomination at FPC, and usually archive those, even if they aren't so old, although I tend to be the only one that does that (I just find it more 'complete' to do so). Looks like the nom's going pretty well. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wilhelmina and Juliana

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Queen Wilhelmina & Juliana.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

stroopwafel story

Hallo,

Your Stroopwafel article is good, but I don't like the reference to stroopwafelshop.com. I feel it is a commercial link. I don't know if you put it in ? Stroopwafelshop.com has stolen / plagiarized text from our website to their's. Calculated bunch of people. I hope you are not directly involved with them. Our website is www.caramelcookiewaffles.com. Feel free to check.

Jan Boogman user Jwboogman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwboogman (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The text is not copied, but information from that website is used. If you can improve the sources for this article, your help is much appreciated. – Ilse@ 09:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was that stroopwafelshop.com on their history/recipe page plagiarized text from our website www.caramelcookiewaffles.com. This is the plagiariazed text: " These delicious Caramel Cookie Waffles (called Stroopwafels by the Dutch) with richly filled chewy centers are one of Holland's true specialties. ..." ( on our website since 1998 ! )I have asked them to change the phrase, but to no avail. I don't think they are a reliable reference source. They pick up any information so they can achieve a high ranking in Google search for stroopwafels. What they have published on their website should be referenced with real historical data, such as old city publications, News Papers, and documents from the few remaining old bakeries in Gouda. Asking those stroopwafel bakeries probably would give you a start. The stroopwafel information that I have is unfortunately also all from hearsay, and is not referenced. Given these facts I don't think Stroopwafelshop.com should have a link pointing them. They are a commercial link, not a reliable reference source.One could ask Stroopwafelshop.com where they got there information.

My compliments to you for writing a good and informative story about stroopwafels. It is a tremendous improvement over an earlier version ! I just had to get this off my chest. Thanks for your good work, Jan Willem Boogman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwboogman (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a problem with a plagiarized text, maybe you should address the author/publisher of this plagiarism. If you know a more reliable source for the Stroopwafel article, you can change the link yourself. And about your other remark, Google does not index external links in Wikipedia, when you view the HTML source code you will find rel="nofollow" for every external link. – Ilse@ 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Golden Film

Hello, I've just reviewed your FAC for Golden Film and while I can't support right now I've added a lot of comments to help you improve the article to the minimum standard which I would expect for FA. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will try to resolve the problems later. I'll notify you. – Ilse@ 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for help

Hello! During a peer review not so long ago, you had copy edited the article on Rufus Wilmot Griswold. I've since expanded it (specifically, a section on his literary reputation and influence). If you get a moment, could you give it a once-over? I'm hoping to nominate it for Good Article in a few days. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the lead contains unnecessary details and the article structure (division in sections) could be improved. There are also some minor issues. I will make some edits. – Ilse@ 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me more specific feedback so that we can pass/fail the good article nomination? I'm thinking the excess detail you're referring to might include the age he left his family, the name of his wife, that sort of thing. I left a big note on Talk:Rufus Wilmot Griswold asking for more detail, too, and I hadn't heard back yet. Thanks for reviewing this, by the way! I really do appreciate the feedback, and I'm just trying to get a better understanding! :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear from you! It's been about two weeks since the nomination was put on hold - that's double what is generally done. I've significantly added to the article during that time, threw in a couple more images (I believe that was one of your suggestions), and took some non-NPOV terms out of the lede. If it's still not up to snuff, I'd love to get some feedback or feel free to fail it. At this point, I almost want to urge asking for a second opinion, but I leave it up to you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Golden Film outstanding FAC comments

Hey Ilse@, responses to your questions below... (my up to date comments in italics)

• In the list of Golden Film recipients, it says 2001 and 2002 recipients only had to sell 75,000 tickets. If so this needs to be added here.
  • This is explained in the History section. What do you mean with this remark?
    • The lead is a bit misleading saying 100,000 is needed, as historically it's not entirely true.
• "While the recipients of the award have considered the receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films are not successful when they have sold only the tickets needed to receive the Golden Film ." Not clear what this sentence means.
  • Could you help me with this sentence? I can't get it right.
    • I think you're trying to say something along the lines that the award of a Golden Film does not guarantee critical success...
• "announced the Golden Film on September 4, 2001 as an award for films from the Netherlands that had been seen by a paying audience of, at that time, 75,000 or more.[1] " - this reads rather awkwardly for me.
  • This was the definition of the award at the introduction in 2001. I replaced two commas with em dashes, does this already help?
    • Better now.
• "Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award given to films that are a success." this seems pretty obvious to me, if I was given an award for a film I produced/acted in, I'd probably consider it a success too.
  • This passage is inserted, because critics say films that have only the audience needed for the Golden Film award are not yet commercially successful.
    • Seems similar in gist to the Golden Film not guaranteeing success... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reconsider support for picture

Already promoted. I retain my support for the promoted version (but agree that the small version is a disaster, and any reasons for wanting it in the Shakespeare article by those editors seems bizarre and totally self-serving, and I would oppose that too as you suggested). --jjron (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Prinsengracht Amsterdam.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Prinsengracht Amsterdam.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Prinsengracht Amsterdam.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Prinsengracht Amsterdam.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Poster Het woeden der gehele wereld.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Poster Het woeden der gehele wereld.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a non-free use rationale for the image's use. – Ilse@ 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Geertgen

Well, I did oppose that one too, as Painting is not that helpful a link, but I'm happy to leave things as they are. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wikilink for you. – Ilse@ 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks - did you see my date question at talk? The National Gallery, London's big catalogue doesn't attempt any dates for him. I'm adding a Getty link to talk too. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly there is no portrait. You could switch it to a painting infobox, although this doesn't seem an improvement to me. Or lose the infobox entirely. I don't think it is misleading; several artists have non-portraits in their infobox. I'm not too happy about some of your other reversions - the link to the fairly obscure Holy Kinship is very useful, and the point about the relative rarity of Dutch EN artists important. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't the Holy Kinship article be linked from the body of the article? None of the other paintings contain links and I don't believe wikilinks shouldn't break up the titles in this case. And about the image, many articles have an infobox without image, and I don't see any problem this. – Ilse@ 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathsheba at Her Bath

The article Bathsheba at Her Bath has been improved since you nominated it for deletion. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathsheba at Her Bath. --Eastmain (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Syndics of the Drapers' Guild‎

Similarly, you may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syndics of the Drapers' Guild‎ in light of the improvements that have been made to Syndics of the Drapers' Guild‎. ==Eastmain (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vondelpark

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vondelpark, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Ilse,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Queen Wilhelmina & Juliana.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 26, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-05-26. howcheng {chat} 00:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 'n Beetje Verliefd

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 'n Beetje Verliefd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? β^_command 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:BNN logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BNN logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Cyzor (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

International Relations Amsterdam

Hello Ilse, The table should be under government as you said. But the table is not incomplete. It is actually very complete and a source confirmes this. Also, in my opinion it should be in the article since every article concerning a city has one. Indien je Nederlands bent, kan je me voortaan berichtjes in het Nederlands sturen. Bedankt voor het berichtje. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Amsterdam

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps under which terms the article was delisted following a seven day waiting period. There is absolutely no requirement to notify wikiprojects or users of the intention to delist and users involved should have noticed this come up on their watchlists when the concerns were first raised. If you feel strongly about it I suggest you address the list of problems on the talk page and then renominate it at WP:GAN. If you feel really strongly about the manner in which it was delisted, take it to WP:GAR for a second opinion. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I think that is an issue best raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps rather than with me personally.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have posted a comment. – Ilse@ 12:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The FairTax Book

I found it odd that you stated "replace non-free book cover (reasons: image not significant for this article; no purpose of use description in fair use rationale other that "used to illustrate") in the summary of the FairTax article, when our fair-use policy states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law". The only purpose of the Fair-Use is to "used to illustrate". Then you removed the image from the other articles stating their was "no article rational" after you first removed that rational from the image. All these seem to fall under Fair-Use and the rational for their use was there. You also didn't give any discussion about it. The book was one of the major points in the FairTax movement and is discussed in the lead - it is very significant and the most visible image in relation to the FairTax plan. I haven't reverted your changes but am considering doing so. Morphh ^(talk) 15:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the policy some more, I don't feel your actions were incorrect. Your approach was a little odd though. Perhaps something to consider. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing the issue. A non-free image needs a unique non-free use rationale for each article it is used in. This rationale should contain a purpose of use description that explains for each article why the image cannot be omitted there. I replaced the non-free image in the FairTax article with a free image that served the purpose stated in the non-free use rationale: "used to illustrate". Illustration is not a valid purpose of use for a non-free image. I have removed the book cover from the other articles for the same reason. – Ilse@ 10:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huis ter Nieuwburg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan de Baen

Apart from the fact that I've just started the article Jan de Baen and it is still rather short, what kind of copyediting does the article need? – Ilse@ 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a very minor thing really: It had a bit of a translated feeling to it when i read it. Does it happen to be a translation from a Dutch language text? While im not exactly good at grammar, it seems to have the same sentence constructions i would use myself when translation an article (Which is generally taken, not a good thing).

Again, very minor, and maybe very untrue. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The source I used for the text did not contain any complete sentences. I'll look into the matter, and I'll try to improve the text. – Ilse@ 18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Good luck with the article, and have a happy editing time :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe you can take another look at the article, in order to see whether the text has improved. – Ilse@ 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jan de Baen

On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan de Baen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mifter (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Museum Geelvinck-Hinlopen

Het is lang geleden dat ik op school zat dat de juffrouw suggesties deed. Dit is geen schoolklasje. Ga je gang met je suggesties of aanwijzingen. Taksen (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion for the structure for the article Museum Geelvinck-Hinlopen is open for discussion. Please feel invited but not obliged to contribute to the discussion on the talk page. – Ilse@ 01:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Red-light District

Red-light district, Amsterdam

Hallo Ilse, Deze foto is nu een FPC op en.wikipedia.org. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I opposed the nomination, but I think the image could be nominated as quality image on Wikimedia Commons. – Ilse@ 23:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did and it is already a QI. I also nominated it as an FP on Commons, because I agree with you that it lacks some EV, but otherwise is a stunning picture. BTW, why do you always answer in English, when you are Dutch? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, see also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice. – Ilse@ 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg

Please do not attempt to edit war on this image. Information has been provided, and if you believe more is required, there is a talk page. Best, - auburnpilot talk 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the source you provided is sufficient. – Ilse@ 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies if I came off a bit blunt (it's still early). I've also added the use information as requested on the article talk page. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Starry night

I'm a little confused by this. The picture exists on commons already. We are supposed to delete images on Wikipedia that are already on commons.

I checked the version of the image I deleted and it was tagged with an image to state that it had been specifically downloaded from commons as a copy, so what's the problem with deleting it? Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured pictures should have a Wikipedia page containing this template {{FeaturedPicture}}. See also Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Closing procedure. – Ilse@ 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Okay, I've had a little time to check through the page history. It was made a featured pic on Wikipedia in March 2007, and featured on the front page on June 28 of the same year.

On 22 August 2008 someone tagged the image to be moved to Commons, and later the same day User Melesse moved the image to commons and deleted the image on Wikipedia.

On 8 November Victuallers DL'ed the image from Commons to WP in order to use it for a DYK hook. I did the cleaning up and archiving for that DYK set the following day, 9 November, as part of which I deleted the image as it had been copied from Commons, as we are supposed to do.

The image is still on Commons and it still contains the information that the image is a featured picture on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what your complaint is exactly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the pictures that are featured on Wikipedia should have a Wikipedia page with the mentioned template, since Commons is a different project. Compare for instance Image:World Map 1689.JPG. – Ilse@ 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know that much about image policy, perhaps you should take your request to one of the image policy talk pages, and see what they have to say? I'm happy to restore the image if I know I'm doing the right thing, but I'm afraid I'm not well enough informed about this aspect of policy to make the decision. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilse is correct (it's on CAT:NCT#Note to Admins - "Post deletion - Restore the {{FeaturedPicture}} tags"), though I should mention that you restore the page, not the image. MER-C 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MER-C, for pointing out the note. – Ilse@ 07:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Screenshot Hollow Man.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Screenshot Hollow Man.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for overhauling the Amsterdam Metro page

I'd just like to say a big 'Bedankt!' for that, it looks a lot better now.

EasyTarget (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still thinking about some improvements. – Ilse@ 09:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)