User talk:Infrogmation/Archive November December 07

Archive of old talk for User:Infrogmation

Next older talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive September October 07

Next more recent talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive January April 08

Image:World war one web alliance.jpg

Thanks for uploading the nifty image Image:World war one web alliance.jpg. Do you have any additional information on it you could add-- eg, source, artist, date? Thanks! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I had my google web history turned off when I found it):... I've tried to found the site again, but no luck... I'm going to put in articles between the Franco-Prussian war and WWI, perhaps someone that sees it will know about it & source it; any suggestions about appropriate articles?--victor falk 15:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Algérie

Hey - I've been reverting the changes on Air Algérie and Royal Air Maroc that assert Royal Air Maroc is smaller than Air Algerie. (I have no personal interest in the matter, I started watching RAM and noticed this trend) I saw your comment ("Repeatedly reverted assertions with no references despite request distracting from lead of the article; moving it a bit for down for now.") and I wanted to show that I'm trying to not edit war, but instead I'm trying to solve the issue. ([1] [2] [3]) I believe there are actually good sources that RAM is larger than Air Algérie (Talk:Royal Air Maroc#Royal air maroc is larger than Air algerie). I wondered if you had any suggestions about how to deal with an anonymous editor who won't discuss (it looks like the 3 IPs I warned are all the same editor). Thanks --Matt 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello Infrogmation:

I found my way here by looking for messages about fair use of images. I haven't tried to bring any images to Wikipedia, but in editing text I have seen enough to realize it is tricky.

I would much appreciate if you would answer a couple or three basic questions, OR point me to the right place to find the answers.

I understand about copyright, in general terms. I don't understand the process of verification related to images.

1) If I take a photograph that may be useful in a Wikipedia article, HOW DO I TELL/CONVINCE/PROVE TO WIKIPEDIA that (a) I actually took the photo and (b) that I'm making it freely available? (I know that I am honest, but Wikipedia doesn't know that.)

2) Same question except suppose the photo was taken by my brother-in-law? (he is actually a photographer.)

3) Suppose the photo is from a website outside Wikipedia (say www.xyz.com) and they send me a e-mail message saying their photographer took the photo, and it is fine to use the photo in Wikipedia. I sent a request to www.xyz.com, and they replied, and I have their e-mail, but how can I prove to Wikipedia that it is a bona fide e-mail and not something I edited?

Any help you can give on this would be appreciated.

Thank you, Wanderer57 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The general starting assumption is of good faith, but don't be offended by other users doing spot checkinng or asking for more information about your photos. For your own photos, give full honest information on the photo description page (I'd suggest it would be better to include a bit too much info than have too little). If, say, the photographer is your brother-in-law who doesn't care to upload his photo himself but is giving you permission to do so, make sure you get explicit permission and that he understands and consents to the free licence to be used, and include credit to him and that info in the photo description. This is just some informal advise from me; for the actual policies, please review Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

"Fair use" of non-free licenced material is something that should only be done in narrow circumstances when there is no free licenced alternative material. (There is a bit too much of it on Wikipedia at present and are efforts going on to cut it back.) See Wikipedia:Non-free content.

For showing permission to free license and upload material from elsewhere, see Wikipedia:OTRS.

Take some time to look over the pages linked above, and if you can't find an answer to something you need to know, please ask. Hope this helps, Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I will work my way through this. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:216.213.209.185

I'm puzzled by your reasons for this block - I found one test edit/piece of vandalism by this user, which I reverted, along with a couple of others I found when checking the user's contributions. I gave the user a {{uw-test2}} warning, as there had only been one previous warning (yours). As I understand it, a user should receive the full set of warnings before being blocked. I'd appreciate any insight you have on this. Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is discression on how many warnings before a block to give dependant on what sort of mischief the editor is up to. That was my call at that time for that case; if you think I'm too harsh, too lenient, or whatever, feel free to give me feedback or ask for a reconsideration. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:030411ac millgreen4sm.jpg

Hi, I believe on 3rd November 2007 you deleted this and other pictures I had submitted to Wikipedia. (See [4] )Please would you explain the reason why. I believe that there was a link to my page but I note that you did not put anything on my talk page before deleting the images. They are photographs which I took and freely donated to Wikipedia. If it simply a matter of putting the correct rights notice with the pictures, please let me know so that I can do this. Regards, Alf Boggis 16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will undelete the image. For the record, I see that it was User:TheCoffee deleted your image here, acting on good faith as it was listed as copied to Wikimedia Commons. It was indeed copied to Commons by another user, but that user neglected to copy the proper credits to you, so the image was tagged as lacking proper permission. After two weeks so tagged with no fix, I deleted the image on Commons as part of regular house cleaning there of images without proper source or permission. (Since the improperly sourced version on Commons neglected to state it came from here on en:Wikipedia, I didn't look here.) I'll take care of sorting this out, and I should have your image back within the half hour. Thanks again and sorry this happened to you-- Commons is a great project, making useful images availible to Wikipedias in different languages, and I'm perhaps as annoyed as you are when someone moves an image sloppily without proper attribution creating problems. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, Image:030411ac millgreen4sm.jpg is back on Commons. If you please, check that the wording and attribution is how you'd like it and edit it if not. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help with this. :-) Alf Boggis 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finale Wiki Geek

I am geting mad. I had all my stuff on a subpage. you get all mad at me for getting edit protetion. I might just quit using Wikipedia because you delete subpage and all this junk. Mad at you Finale Wiki Geek (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you're mad. I'm not mad at you. If there's something you don't understand, try asking about it before getting mad. I've already tried contacting you on your talk page at User talk:Finale Wiki Geek. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I thought this might help to keep new members out of the way for the new infobox we can put up. Sorry if I got all mad. We need to get a new infobox for the page. Clover Records

Finale Wiki Geek (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work. Finale Wiki Geek (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Mobile Alabama flooded photo

27-Nov-2007: Correct: Image:Hurricane Katrina Mobile Alabama flooded parking lot 20050829.jpg. Your transfer of the image was correct. Thank you for your efforts. Sorry, I did not respond sooner: electricity failed last night at 10:25pm, and I have another computer virus (this time, Explorer.EXE has been modified with spyware to contact a group in Russia, who might be spying for US Govt, who knows these days of "Patriot" Act 2). I have no other files from Hurricane Katrina: an earlier computer virus in 2006 killed my other PC totally.

Thank you for collecting Mobile images from Hurricane Katrina. I just now expanded the description for the Mobile Federal Courthouse steps: Wikimedia Image:KatrinaMobileCourthouseSteps.jpg. I will try to find & upload other PD-USGov images for Mobile. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Mobile Alabama flood times

27-Nov-2007: FYI: The waters started rising in Mobile around 9am on August 29, 2005 for about 5 hours. By August 30, the flood waters had receded from the streets, but interiors were still flooded/wet: Mobile street flooding was on 29th only. Because the Hurricane Katrina winds were still blowing during the flood, photos are limited. On Mobile Bay, when the waves/water reached 20 feet or so, the I-10 elevated Jubilee Parkway (Mobile to Spanish Fort) was closed to traffic (on August 29, time yet unknown) due to waves crashing over the bridge. Battleship USS Alabama (BB-60) tilted on its base (listed) due to the storm surge, and it took months to re-align (I would consider ship photos as being Mobile). The previous day (August 28), very strong winds had begun in southern Alabama as Katrina headed west to Louisiana. I remember the wind gusts lasting over 30 hours. When the next storm, Hurricane Rita passed Alabama, strong winds dislodged hanging debris from Katrina (some which still remains 2 years later); however, I was in Houston when Rita hit Lake Charles and Orange/Beaumont, Texas but have no photos: people died evacuating from Houston due to multi-day traffic jams. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded Flickr photo of Katrina Mobile GM&O

28-Nov-2007: I have uploaded that Flickr photo of the parking lot near the GM&O building as Wikimedia Image:Katrina Mobile GMO parking lot.jpg, CC-BY-2.0 (reviewed 6min. later). The author name retrieved by Flinfo is "Mel Silvers" (link http://www.flickr.com/people/45467976@N00) who is "au_tiger01 / Mel Silvers" on Flickr (I don't know him, but likely "Auburn Univ. Tigers"); however, the Metadata (only on the full-size image) shows Author (photographer) as "Michelle Rollsq" (or Michelle Rolls no "q"), photography coordinator of the newspaper Mobile Register (search Google: "Michelle Rolls"+Mobile). Those Flickr images are very low-quality photographs, as if they have been edited by a tool which introduces severe JPEG blurring (not rain/fog): they don't seem to be the original work by Michelle Rolls, and it seems unlikely they were purposely blurred for release unless required by some photo-usage policy? Some clearer photos exist, but they have copyright protection. Hence, I'm looking now for USGovt photos. I'm not sure what else you want to know...? -Wikid77 (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About deleting images

28-Nov-2007: I think when deleting images, you have to consider each image, separately, on a case-by-case basis. If someone found a stolen item in a person's house, that wouldn't be sufficient cause to confiscate all items in the house as being also stolen property. All this takes time, and I would consider delays as justifiable "due process" (reasonable delay to those concerned) to determine which images to delete. Katrina is not exactly a top-dollar photo subject any longer. Unauthorized uploads of new movie photos or TV screenshots would seem a much, much higher priority. Meanwhile, perhaps original photographers should be contacted to find out why the Flickr Katrina images are such low-resolution data and was that authorized or acceptable to the original photographers. Along that line, perhaps those photographers might release other photos for use in Wikipedia, so everyone might benefit more from that approach. Just alerting or warning those photographers might result in some photos released as a kind of reward. However, note that from a photographer's perspective, being noticed in Wikipedia is a type of advertising for them as well, as long as their photos are not endangered, which seems unlikely with such low-quality images. (this note is repeated under User_talk:Wikid77). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

29-Nov-2007: I have begun the process of contacting photographers at the Mobile Register to determine the license status of those Katrina photographs on Flickr. I will keep you informed as to availability of photos. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mobile Press-Register images

29-Nov-2007: Your hunch about the Press-Register images is correct, and all should be deleted from Wikimedia and Flickr: according to today's written memo (email) from Michelle Rolls, Photography Coordinator at the Mobile Press-Register, all those Katrina photos were made on company time, with copyrights retained by the Press-Register, and released to Associated Press with restrictions on use. Those photos were copied to Flickr or elsewhere without proper license/permission. There is no authorization, yet, to release Katrina images to Wikipedia. Text from memo is below:

Subject: RE: Katrina News photos licensed on Flickr & Wikipedia

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:42:42 -0600
From: "Rolls, Michelle"

Thank you for your concern on copyright issues regarding these photos. You are correct that these photos were posted without permission. The Press-Register owns copyright and licensing for these photos. I took the photographs during Hurricane Katrina as media coverage for this newspaper. We released those images to the Associated Press with restrictions for usage.

Michelle Rolls
Photography Coordinator
Press-Register ( Mobile , AL )

The only Katrina-Mobile image exempt is the US-Govt photo of the flooded courthouse steps, so I will use that image instead of parking-lot images. (this is a follow-up to "About deleting images" above, and posted also to User_talk:Wikid77). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've deleted the problem images from Commons. More detailed reply on your talk page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Wilson

When I removed the red link from that article, I did not consider if the subject's notability. Red links give the reader an unfavorable impression of the site and in my view red link disambiguation at the top of a page is not necessary. - Gilliam 05:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfavorable"? Red links are an indication that Wikipedia has not yet achieved perfection. I see no reason to pretend we have achived it. I suspect that even if we did pretend we had achieved it, some users would notice we had not, and would develop an even more unfavorable impresssion of Wikipedia than they might if they saw an admission that Wikipedia editors realize that our encyclopedia is not yet complete. -- Infrogmation 07:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move page

I tried to do what you say, but in this occasion the 2 pages were created... so what to do? I changed the text from one to another... may be I would have to do the same with the history... --CarlesVA (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry,

I hope you have patience with old questions. I cannot log in, using my known (?) password, and did not get mail giving me a new password.

Perhaps I goofed by not providing a mail address? Can you look in on this, point me in the right direction? I registered about 8 months ago.

Thanks for your time, Infrogmation Regards, Bruce BruceWayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.253.6 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a user you blocked indefinitely

Greetings. You blocked User:The_Mystery_Man indefinitely on November 11. I've noticed another user named User:The_Special_Education_Squad who follows VERY similar editing practices as Mystery Man did. For example:

Uploads images in an identical fashion, including focus on biographic images & image name format (first initials, last name). Compare Mystery Man to Special Education.
Properly sources images, but frequently uses bogus/unverifiable licenses.
Overuses the deprecated {{PD}} template.
Doesn't leave edit summaries.
And, he registered about 4 days after Mystery Man was blocked indefinitely.

I've opened up a checkuser request. Any other thoughts? --Tom (talk - email) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hegel.jpg

hello, I am an user of http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Fal7i

could you please let me know what is the book you talks:

Engraving scanned from a 19th century book

thanks in advance and sory for my bad english --83.156.93.120 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I uploaded that to en:Wikipedia in 2002, when source information was more casual. I will relocate my source and add information on the image page soon. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk)

Done, Image:Hegel.jpg. That's the source I scanned it from, although this late 19th century US printing I'm sure was not the original source of the engraving, probably reused from an early 19th century printing, and no information on the original artist. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Latta.jpg

I'm a bit baffled as to why you deleted this image...It's a government image from his official portrait like any other Congressman would have. Can you un-delete it or explain what I'm missing?--CastAStone /^/(talk) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BobLatta.jpg was sourced to http://www.house.state.oh.us/, which is a state not a Federal website, clearly marked on the front page of "© Ohio House of Representatives". Not PD-US source as the uploader falsely claimed. The uploader, since blocked, had a long history (under various sock-puppets) of false "PD-US" claims on images, including Associated Press and other copyrighted news service sources. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll find another, proper free image.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 04:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Morning Call ???

Hope you understood my edit on cafe du monde, think my edit summary was oddly worded. the citation request was on political cause of move, not the Morning Call's having been in the French Mkt.

Is there no article on Morning Call? I am surprised! Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just edited the sentence accordingly; looks fine to me. Yes, we could use an article on the Morning Call some time; if details of reasons can be found they would be better there. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Michaelangelo

A tag has been placed on Michaelangelo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Funeral 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've restored the redirect instead... the band clearly aren't notable. Funeral 17:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Manne, Four Years Later

Just wanted to thank you for having left me an encouraging and appreciative message when I started the Shelly Manne article nearly four years ago. Your (and Danny's) encouragement helped spur me on to add to and refine the article over the years. It has now achieved "Good Article" status, and I don't know if I would have gone this far without that early encouragement. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the note and your good work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Electric

Thank you for that invite! I'm certainly going to upload that photo and allow Creative Commons for it. --Reynardo (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AEStevenson pic

I note in User_talk:Infrogmation/Archive1 your lk ref'g to AES which for a time designated the 19th cent VP but now is a Dab reflecting the ambiguity between him and the 20th cent pres-cand & UN amb (and 2 less likely possibilities), just in case you are concerned abt this.
--Jerzy•t 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HitOfTheWeekLabel.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HitOfTheWeekLabel.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. — Save_Us_229 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the rationale seems pretty obvious, none the less as this was published in the early '30s with no notice of copyright on the label, the label itself is PD-US in any case, so I have retagged it so. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]