User talk:JoanneB/Archive2007/May

Matt Sanchez

removed message, replied on user's talk page. --JoanneB 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Joanne,

This is what Matt Sanchez wrote to me on the Matt Sanchez 'discussion' page:

No wonder those kids teased you for being a sissy back in elementary school. You could take a lesson from your buddy Edwards and the "I feel Pretty Video" I posted on my blog [17]

This is just one in a long string of insults Mr. Sanchez has posted. Clearly, you misaimed if you meant to uphold the integrity of something...Mr. Sanchez has no integrity. That's why he's an ex-male-prostitute now involved in gay-bashing. So, I suggest you step away while others are slinging the mud.

Note I didn't call Mr. Sanchez names, but he certainly called me names. Many times.

Sincerely, Robert YoungR Young {^yakł_talk} 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think there are two issues here: one was those claims, with the fact tags. The other is Sanchez editing on WP, conflicts of interest issues that come with that and these personal attacks. Regarding the latter, I've left him a message about that. The conflicts of interest part is a complicated issue (especially since WP:COI is not policy but a guideline), and you're right that there's a lot of mud slinging going on on both sides, and perhaps I should not have gotten involved. The only thing I did, again, was revert when allegations without references were inserted. However, whatever is going on around an article, that should not be a wrong action. --JoanneB 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

lyric link

you are liek the 5th person to remove the link. Nobody will tell me how it breaks copyright rules. Copyright rules say that if it's reproduced, it's wrong. I run the website, what do i have to do to make it ok to put on it? Because [www.darklyrics.com Darklyrics] has had a link on there for like 2 years. Can you please tell me becasue everybody else who's taken it off hasn't replied. Violask81976 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrighted. This means that having them on your website, unless you own the copyright, is not legal. And that's why it shouldn't be linked to. If you wrote those lyrics (I haven't looked through your contribs to determine what your link to the band is, if any) then it's another story. However, in that case, the site still has some very annoying advertisements, which according to our policy on external links means we shouldn't link to it. The links to Darklyrics shouldn't be there either, I'll remove them from the articles. --JoanneB 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to beleive that i'm breaking copyright laws by having song lyrics on my site. If that's true, then why are there so many lyric sites? Violask81976 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of stuff that's illegal still happens... Apparently, there are some 'loopholes' and websites are using those, for instance stating that the lyrics are purely for educational use. I have no idea whether that's valid, I'm not an expert on US copyright law. There are several websites where you can read about copyright law and lyrics, here are some: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. --JoanneB 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well..it is for educational purposess. Violask81976 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Asad Aleem

• Hi. Thanks for the block of this guy. He has been trouble for a long time and there's a series of AfDs involving him. I tagged all his articles as speedy vandalisms or prod's. If you need more information, I can give all I got to you, but right now I gotta sleep. Toodles, thanks again! JuJube 12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

* Thank you for your note about him! I've deleted most of the pages that you tagged as speedies, I think. Let me know if I missed any. --JoanneB 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for not deleting the Hart wrestling family since it is most definitly not a hoax page :) MPJ-DK 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Green (musician)|Peter Green

Thanks for protecting this article until a solution can be reached. On the talk page, a solution HAS been reached, a concensus, if you like. But an anonymous vandal insists on reverting. This is also happening with John McVie, Mick Fleetwood and Danny Kirwan - any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we not block the vandal? Or does he win? I don't mean to be difficult but it's driving us round the bend... Bretonbanquet 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but also see my comment on Wiki alf's page. My protection was not an endorsement of either version. --JoanneB 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bretonbanquet" is repeatedly removing all reference to England. The user is a British/Cornish nationalist and thus likes anything to be described as British or Cornish, but not English. This is not acceptable and this user thinks it owns these pages. Following his second message on here. "It's driving's us round the bend". He fails to mention he is on a one man crusade to remove all references to England.-172.207.175.60 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can either of you point to a guideline other that the Manual of Style which says "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." - now this can easy be read as "well it says country so that's England" and "it says citizen or national and they'd have a UK passport so that's United Kingdom", Joanne how do you read that?--Alf ^melmac 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading the discussion on the Peter Green talk page, and I tend to agree that unless someone is certainly English (preferably has self-identified as such), we should go with a more general statement, as that in most cases is verifiable, - and in these cases, that would be British. I'm not British nor English though, so I don't think I should have the last word on this ;-) But reverting like what happened here, led two rather experienced admins to think a plain edit war was going on. Apparently there was a consensus, but the tone of the edit summaries certainly led me to believe otherwise. --JoanneB 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet: there seems to be a broader consensus towards "English", in a lot of cases: see, for instance, Category:English_musical_groups. But I agree that when that can't be stated for certain, because there are serious doubts for some reason British is probably 'safer'. --JoanneB 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This actually isn't even about the English/British thing at the minute. Bretonbanquet is repeatedly removing the word England from all articles he edits for no rational reason whatsoever. I removed the British description as the user was repeatedly reverting English to British, so it seemed reasonable to remove reference to their nationality as there are many articles on Wikipedia that do not describe this. See Kurt Cobain for example. Although, touching on that subject, it is regarded as racist to say that someone cannot be English due to the origin of their parents and their ethnicity, which this user clearly is despite claiming otherwise elsewhere. It is more specific to refer to people as English, Scottish, Welsh or N. Irish and this subject has been discussed numerous times and discussions have come out in favour of this. I believe it seems logical to do this, but in the instance of there being a verifiable source that says the subject does not identify as either English, Scottish, Welsh or N. Irish, then they should indeed only be described as British.

172.189.165.177 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sheer Nerve!

I don't mind you removing the warning at all. I added the warning via VandalProof, and it seems that you had made the actual revert just before me. I would not intentionally piggyback a warning, as that's not really how I get my kicks. Good catch and c ya! the_undertow ^talk 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the courtesy you have afforded me to be quite refreshing. But on the reals, I would not have been offended. ;) the_undertow ^talk 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reversions

Hi JoanneB. I wonder about these edits. I think the IP added obvious vandalism. AW 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the first reversion looks right, I have no idea why the second happened, it doesn't get much more obvious than that indeed. Thanks for letting me know! -JoanneB 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I think we both edited Vint Cerf at around the same time, still trying to get used to WP:TWINKLE. Vonsche 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't even notice :-) I was surprised you hadn't been welcomed yet, but then I noticed that your account was only two days old. Way to go! If you have any questions, let me know. --JoanneB 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Phi Life Cypher

I'm one of their producers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't have time to be dancing around with you about the legality of the image, so I'll just leave it at this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs)

Gruesome Photo

By the way, my brother was in the army.. He shot the guy himself and took the picture himself. It was fair licensing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs).

If he shot the image, that's ok, please let him upload it. If the image has metadata, people are more likely actually believe you. As it was, you could have taken the image from anywhere, which could have gotten the Foundation in legal trouble. "Fair licensing" (I think you mean fair use) is something else. --JoanneB 19:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what MetaDeta is, bud. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToughLuckMeadow (talk • contribs).

If you upload an image that you have downloaded from your digital camera, the metadata will automaticall be included. Just ask you brother. --JoanneB 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if your brother took that image, and he's in the army, he's in big trouble. Taking pictures like that and spreading them breaches all kinds of protocol. --JoanneB 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not like he posted it up on ogrish, it was one of the photos in his picture gallery he took there. As for protocol, he was shot and then shortly after an A-10 raid took place in the area. That was one of the outcomes.

Quick question from "Libs" re: copyvio images

Sorry to bother you. You were such a great help "eavesdropping" on Alf's talkpage I thought I would come straight to you with my question. I stumbled across some copyvio images uploaded by Bizznitchicuss (talk · contribs). Typical "impersonator using made up username to upload pics" type stuff. The listed website clearly indicate no unauthorised used without permission. What is the avenue on Wiki, besides asking someone like you, to report these types of clear policy side-stepping? I come across these all the time. I am almost to the point where I can spot an "EthanC"(blatant copyvio uploader) sockpuppet in my sleep. Thanks for your help. "Libs" 156.34.226.76 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Public domain is pretty extreme as a license for images like these, so I've sent the website owner an email making sure it's the same person, and that he realises what the consequences are. In the mean time, I'm removing the licenses. In a few days, the images will be deleted becuase there's no license, unless of course, that website owner replies. In general, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place to raise flags like these. Whatever you do with these kinds of violations that you spot (I don't mind dealing with them :)) be assured that it's much appreciated! Kind regards, --JoanneB 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you so much. I do have another one. [[Image:Martyfriedmanlive.jpg]] was uploaded by a user who, at first, claimed himself as the photographer. I called foul on it(since the user has uploaded other pics that he claimed as his own but were easily googled) The user then blanked any license/source and just wants to edit war his possible copyvio back into the subject article. If he would take the time to validate the pb-self that would be great. It's a good pic and would be a good add into the article. But for now, with absolutely no source/licensing, it is not suitable. Thanks again for all your help. 156.34.223.144 09:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, I guess I'm on a roll. The following images are all unsourced and tagged improperly(with some goofy comments added in as well to try and rationalise usage) Image:Mattheafytriviumold.jpg , Image:Paolo gregoletto trivium 05.jpg , Image:Corey beaulieu trivium 05.jpg , Image:Mattheafytrivium 07.jpg , Image:Twelvetribesbandphoto.jpg all have some strange text. I've never heard of "old but free" as a license tag. And "from their myspace" leaves very little confidence. Thanks. 156.34.211.18 10:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again JoanneB. The "Marty Friedman" image uploader, Blt024 (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to backdoor into some of his images and remove his pics from the PUI list and remove 'unfree' tags from the images as well. I rv'd him a couple of times but I am not going to shade 3RR to try and "keep things clean"Gwernol may be watching :) . Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! 156.34.142.110 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him. The Rolly image now has the right tag - and it's no longer a 'possibly unfree image', as it is now a definite unfree image, and some admin will have to decide whether they agree with the current fair use. It doesn't have a fair use rationale, but that's not a reason to speedy it right now. --JoanneB 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Joanne, thanks for your help editing the U of M 1013 Project articles. My students are learning a lot from their interaction with Wikipedians. They're starting to get the hang of this, and they seem to be enjoying themselves. "Final" revisions on their articles are due next Thursday, so please help look out for them over the next week. 1013-josh 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, really! I think it's one of the best educational projects around so far, and I think a lot can be learned from the way you've handled this. I hope that after the project is over you'll let us know what your experiences were: how did the students respond, how much time did they spend on it, how much time did you spend on it, etc. The big issue here, I think, is that this only works when it's done well. Otherwise, it will be merely a frustrating experience for teachers, students and Wikipedians, and I think such projects have failed before. But somehow it seems like this does work. --JoanneB 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's definitely been a learning experience for me, as well as the class. And it does take more time than the average "research paper" unit would. I have to go offline for several weeks when the semester ends, but I'll be "cocooning" the project, archiving all the pages, etc., and when I have some time later this summer, I'll write up something for future instructors to use. There's a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that may also help to make things easier for teachers, students, and Wikipedians going forward. 1013-josh 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivium Images

The images that you put up for deletion were given to me by an admin to add, why are you removing them!? Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If an admin asked you to upload them, he (or she) should know that a license and a source are always needed. Why doesn't the admin upload them himself? I'm not removing them, I'm just asking for licenses and / or sources where they weren't provided. --JoanneB 10:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They said they didn't know the band members enough to discern who was who. Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, how could we ever know she really gave her permission? Please see your talk page. Or tell her who's who and let her upload them. --JoanneB 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay you seem to be confused, the set that are from an admin are from a page linked on flickr. The other pictures from Jenna are being allowed to be used by her when I asked her on the Trivium forums. Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 11:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's strange that I'm confused: you're not giving the correct information. For every single image, provide a license, a source and, if fair use, a fair use rationale. "Given to me by an admin" is not enough. Let her send an email to the address I gave you. If she's really an admin, she should be very aware that 'someone told me I could use this' doesn't work for images. --JoanneB 11:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are being incredibly obtuse. I've explained that she's not an admin, here is the permission from Jenna, and I'll find the page on which the admin told me to use the flickr pictures. http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6057/proofffffuf0.png Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trivium#Images Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stay civil, thanks. Regarding Jenna: you only asked her about using the image for Wikipedia. However, because of the license, the image will now be free for everyone to use. Do you realise that? And ok, so I mixed up the two sitations, which are both a problem though. Re: admin, "The images that you put up for deletion were given to me by an admin to add,". That's the admin I was referring to be stating that she or he should know better. --JoanneB 11:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being incredibly civil, despite the situation. She gave permission for it to be used as long as her name is attributed. So you're saying that the admin shouldn't have said I can use those images for the articles? Well doesn't it then just become your word against his? How should I decide? Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling people 'obtuse' isn't very civil in my book. I don't know who the admin is who told you that it was ok to use the images for that article. I don't know either whether he knew that you had only asked for permission for the images to be used in Wikipedia. And I don't know how well the admin knows the rules and policy regarding copyright issues. He might very well be an expert (in which case I invite him to convince of why I'm wrong) but copyright policy is not an area that is discussed in WP:RFA, so his being an admin does not automatically mean he has any experience in this area. You don't have to take my word for it. Re-upload the images, and I'll list them at a copyvio problem page. Then someone else will judge if there is a problem and whether the images have to be deleted. --JoanneB 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I linked you to the page where the admin didn't just say it was okay to use them, but directed me to those images as they're free, unlike the previous ones I had uploaded. You being purposefully awkward isn't very civil either and nor is wikistalking but I'm not saying anything about that to you. Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I get it now. My (sincere, really) apologies for mixing up the Jenna MacPhee images and the Flickr ones. The Flickr ones are ok to use, although they still need a source. And the licenses you used aren't correct but I'll change that. The other issues still stand though. --JoanneB 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay what needs to be fixed now then? Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the (three?) Flickr images by Rokfoto and have added the correct license and the source. You can use that as an example for the rest, if there are more images that have already been licensed with a free image by the uploader at another place (like on Flickr, this time). I don't believe what I did was wikistalking: someone pointed a problem with one of your images out to me, and I decided to go through the rest of your image edits to see if there were any other problems. This is common practice to do in such cases, and can prevent a lot of problems later on. Furthermore, I truly wasn't purposefully being awkward, but I guess there's only my word for that.

Ok, for the rest of the images, piece by piece, to avoid further confusion:

• Image:Triviumlivedublin07.jpg - the screenshot really isn't enough, sorry. First, she has not licensed them under a free license now (just for Wikipedia) and also, it doesn't state her name anywhere. A screenshot is also not very convenient for later use: you'd have to upload it to Wikipedia, because other wise, in the future, no one can check if she really licensed them. I think you have two options: 1) ask her to send an email to you and then forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, 2) ask her to email to that address directly, 3) ask her to create an account and upload them herself, and ask her to add an license tag herself as she uploads them, stating something like "I am ..., I took these pictures and I license them as ...". Again, this page Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has all the details.
• Image:Mattheafytrivium 07.jpg - as above.
• Image:Twelvetribesbandphoto.jpg - is a publicity picture, but can only be used in certain circumstances, see here: Template:Promophoto (that's the license you should use, and you should link to their MySpace, like I did with the Flickr pictures)
• Image:Trivium_Ascendancy_Cover.jpg and the other album covers: the license is right, but it also says that it needs a source (a link to the place you found it, their website?) and a fair use rationale: why you believe the image can be used for the specific article its used in, see Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale for details.

Regards, --JoanneB 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up questions

Did you hear back from the listed source on the John5 images?. "Twinkle Toes" keeps putting the image you tagged as unsourced back into the List of Telecaster players... which is a featured article and would be better served without the dubious content. Also, the Marty Friedman image uploader, Blt024 (talk · contribs) went bezerk yesterday and got himself permanently banned. He has returned as BLT420 (talk · contribs). And has already uploaded the same copyvio pic again... this time naming it after Scooby and Shaggy? Some people never learn :) . Thanks, as always, for your help. 156.34.222.50 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the John5 guy: a weird situation, the guy from the website doesn't reply to emails to both his emailaddress on the website, nor his emailaddress listed in the whois. The copyright mark on the image contradicts the license, so I'm not quite sure what to do with that. I'll list this case at the copyright problems page. That will take a while, but I thinking taking the long road is best in this case. In the meantime, please don´t revert any more, 3RR is around the corner, no matter how right you are...

I've looked at the BLT420 contribs too. The Rolly image is at best fair use, all the other licenses that have been thrown in (I've lost count) were invalid. Fair use can be disputed, but until that is resolved (one way or the other), it basically should be allowed to stay. The Friedman image I have doubts about: a small border, no metadata, but in spite of all that, he might be right. I've asked him the upload a more original version of the image (no border, if possible with metadata). And I found this when looking for possible copies of that image. Who knew? :) --JoanneB 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something in that link??? :) . Either that or the picture of the muscle bound "ALF" disturbed me to the point where I couldn't see the rest of the page :D . I am guessing our image was there earlier?? but has been switched now to something else? 156.34.222.50 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the muscle bound ALF indeed :-) He's always so modest here, but elsewhere he's really showing off! --JoanneB 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alf drops the dumbells and legs it toward the kitchen (and the post-five-o'clock snack)

Actually, since I am still recovering from sinus surgery which left me rather swollen/sore... I can very much relate right now to Alf's protruding proboscis. 156.34.222.50 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alf returns from the kitchen still clutching a Gouda's Gilde extra grote Siroopwafel, notices the crowd gathering around Joanne's talk and hides in the biscuit cupboard until he thinks it safe, meanwhile the noise of lightly crunched Siroopwafelen is heard through the cupboard door

Joanne doesn't mind the crowd, as long as they're all here for tea and stroopwafels :)

Joanne points Image:No_Remorse.jpg out to Libs, mutters something about 'no source' and 'no fair use rationale', glances at Alf and runs.

Alf mutters something about the original being uploaded before rationales were thought rational, drops a stroopwafel into Joanne's coffee from as high as he can, watches the coffee mug spill its contents before toppling over onto Joanne's laptop. Alf thinks it then prudent to run as fast as he can manage (which when full of stroopwafels is considerably slower than usual)

Knew that was a bad idea (WP:BEANS) - I saw this a few mo's ago - (diff) (hist) . . m Image:Rollyairguitar.jpg‎; 17:40 . . (+11) . . BLT420 (Talk | contribs | block) --Alf ^melmac 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least he's got the right license, and an attempt of a rationale. It's still lacking a source, however. And yeah, the fair use can be disputed, in terms of replacability, as often. --JoanneB 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after some spoon feeding that I'd have lost my patience doing. JoanneB 1 Rest of the World 0.--Alf ^melmac 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alf mutters something about cessation of siroopwafelen rations to his Dutch friend (if she makes a habit of nudging his elbow as she did above) as he makes this edit.

Joanne smiles and notes that she has read the discussion. She mutters something that uncanningly sounds like "Don't even think about moving to another wiki, I'll come and haunt you!"

Ali wonders if she is going to get fed this week after all that work she did for Joanne...

Alf hands Ali a stroopwafel to be going on with and wonders whether BLT420's name is related to Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato...

Joanne offers both Ali and Alf a full breakfast meal of choice in accordance with your timezone, but hopes that Alf won't start nibbling on innocent Wikipedians.

Alf looks startled and drops the innocent wikipedian he'd been nibbling on, and quickly tries to hide it behind the 'fridge, rather unsucessfully (he wishes now that he'd chosen a less chubby example).

Yummy! Thanks Joanne. /me eyes Alf to ensure he does not steal her meat pie - not that they have them in Ye Old Country.

Bfp wanders by Joanne's talk, looks to see if Alf has left any stroopwafelen lying around and wonders why Joanne falls under Category: English musical groups.

Joanne sees that the ever lightning fast Alf has already fixed it, thanks both Bfp and Alf and throws in an extra packet of stroopwafels for all. (Not this millenium's answer to the Beatles? Alf, you've hurt my feelings!)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

As I have seen you edited the old page of Wikipedia:Esperanza I would just like to inform you I am holding a deletion review to attempt to restore the project. Eaomatrix 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See [5]

Thanks for letting me know, but I agree with Doc's closing of the discussion per WP:SNOW. There has been so much discussion about it, and I do believe that there was a large majority who wanted the page deleted. True consensus will never be reached on issues like these, I believe. Esperanza had some great aspects (and some not so great, obviously), but at the moment it started causing conflicts itself among Wikipedians, it defied its own purpose. Kind regards, --JoanneB 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

John 5

I've uploaded a better looking free to use image. Don't bother trying to get usage of the old one. ≈ Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Regards, --JoanneB 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Illyriaforever

Hello Joanne! I would like to know why my cari site been removed dozens of times. I thought it was violating anything? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Your links did not meet the criteria in our policy on External links. It's a personal website (fansite), and that's in the list of websites that should be avoided. Also, please don't link to any websites that you own or maintain, because of conflict of interest concerns. Kind regards, --JoanneB 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is There anything i can do to fix that? Crazy Cari is not a personal website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

No, sorry, it's a fansite, and fansites aren't good external links for our articles. --JoanneB 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

not even unofficial sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

No, not those either. There are several reasons for that, among others: 1) If such links would be accepted, a lot of the articles those people would be twice as long because of the huge amount of links. Long lists of links are hard to maintain: people have to keep checking that they still work, for instance. 2) We have no way of checking the quality of fansites, and we can't risk linking to websites that for instance spread illegal content (for instance, images that are copyrighted by someone else, or MP3s) or defamatory information. Kind regards, --JoanneB 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this site: http://www.denise-quinones.com ? It is listed on here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

No, that's a fansite too. I've removed it. (and please sign your contribs by typing --~~~~ or clicking the signature button, see [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages) --JoanneB 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Will it be ok if i could add a sites in the reference section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyriaforever (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

In general, that doesn't work, please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Kind regards, --JoanneB 04:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rolly Picture

im sorry for uploading that rolly picture so many times with so many copyrights, wiki is really too confusing. every page i read for copyright stuff is very detailed and which i do not understand all that much. i will admit, that marty picture was not mine and i did not have any right to post it (its right on his website [6]). i could post an image that i have taken personally live but i would not know the copyright to put on it. with the rolly photo, it is the only photo that can be used. i do talk to him personaly, and he very much wants to make a english wiki, as he is getting a growing western fanbase because of Rock Fujiyama. all of his photos are owned by some company except for that. it is a promo picture he sent to fans in 2002 after his movie, and i asked him if i would be able to use this on wikipedia, and he said sure. if there is anything i need to show you, i will. also, are you able to use screenshots as their main picture, because i uploaded one for marty friedman and they erased it. the one i have in question is Howard Stern because that is also a screenshot, it says so right in its copyrights. thank you soooo much for giving me a second chance, i realy want to help wiki and not to "vandalize" it. BLT420 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a lot to take in. An image that you have taken yourself, would be perfect! If you would want to license it as "CC-BY-SA" or "GFDL-self" that would mean that other people could use your picture, as long as they give you credit, and if they change your picture (for instance, they crop it) they will have to use the same license.

Regarding Rolly, that's a bit tricky. It might be very frustrating, but it's not really enough he told you you could use it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which not only means that people don´t have to pay to read it, but also that the information and images can be used for other projects (even commercial ones!). So the thing he would have to agree to, so the image can be used on Wikipedia, is the CC-BY-SA license, or GFDL. If you can ask him this, by email (you can find example letters here: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, you could use the last one for example). If he has replied that this is ok, you can forward that to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org.

Screenshots can be used in certain cases, but only if the article is about a show or a program, or sometimes, about the host of that program, like Howard Stern. If a concert by Marty Friedman was on tv, a screenshot wouldn't be allowed. If he presented a television program, and you would write about the television program itself, a screenshot under fair use would be ok. It's pretty tricky! Kind regards, --JoanneB 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

that is kinda my question. its a screenshot from howard sterns show. this is a screenshot of marty from his show, thats why i believed that photo was allowed if the stern one is. i already started a page on his show, Rock Fujiyama. let me know if that is alright, thanks BLT420 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is alright! The screenshot is a problem though. It's complicated, but I'll try to explain. Screenshots for this sort of stuff are only okay if the article is so much about a certain show that it's simply not possible to illustrate the article (for extra information, not just because it looks nice) with anything else, because nothing else would make sense. So, if Howard Stern has a show that's very important to his career, and the article has a lot of information about it, a screenshot might be okay for that article. But if it's just 'Marty Frieman was on Howard Sterns show, see this screenshot', in the article about Marty Friedman, it's not allowed. I hope I've explained this correctly, and I'm hereby inviting all the other people reading this to correct me if I'm wrong! --JoanneB 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

marty was never on howard stern, he has his own television show, thats why i think if the howard stern screenshot is allowed, then my marty one should. 07:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood you then, my apologies. If he has his own television show and if that show is described in the article, I think a screenshot would be allowed in most cases, yes. --JoanneB 07:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page

A group of unsuspecting Lovebirds....

File:M1897shotgun.jpg

The solution...

you could have left it on for a few more min? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveashlynn (talk • contribs).

Replied on user talk page --JoanneB 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

just 5 min please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveashlynn (talk • contribs).

Replied on user talk page --JoanneB 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i have to congragulate you, your quick. but not quick enough ;) my love saw it. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveashlynn (talk • contribs).

You were lucky then! Next time, however, please use the sandbox for stuff like this, or you'll be blocked. Thanks. --JoanneB 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aww... That's two comments in five minutes about that (Alf's and on IRC)! Just for the record, the guy created an attack page too... And I pointed him to a userspace page on his talk page! And, oh well, never mind... :-)--JoanneB 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodeo article

Dear Joanne:

First of all I want to thank you and all of the other good people at Wikipedia that have been so kind and helpful! Nonetheless, I realize now I was never meant to write for this encyclopedia. No matter what I do or how hard I try, all I get is nasty, cutting remarks on the talk page. Never one kind word. As you and others have told me, nobody "owns" an article in Wikipedia, so good. Somebody else can take over.

If you decide to pursue the animal rights issue, be advised that it is extremely complex, which is why I did not go into detail, or single out PETA as my critic requested. The best sources are the books by Fredriksson ( 3 chapters) & Wooden, as well as the PRCA & WPRA rules books.

Before I ever undertook this project, I asked if references were required and the answer I got was no, but they would be nice. So I tried to be nice and include endnotes. Now I am told they pose a "conflict of inbterest" because of too much of my own work. Well what else? So, if you people feel it is necessary, go ahead and "unbundle" the notes back to their original sources. I can't handle it. I am a retiree on a fixed income who no longer has a University to pay for faxes and copies, and I can't be going to Kinkos and sending all that stuff. Your volunteers surely have access to a library where my book and journal articles are available.

Before you proceed, I just want to give you a small idea of what will happen if you do unbundle the notes. I spent 2 hours yesterday on note #27, and the result is below. I'm never going through that again.

I look forward to reading the perfected article sometime in the future. If you have any factual questions that I can help you with, please let me know. But I gave all my raw data to the various archives, so I can't be much help there. Again, thanks to all. I'm sorry I have been unable to meet your standards of excellence. Below is unbundled note # 27.

Sincerely, Mary Lou LeCompte

27. Interviews with Nancy Binford, Dixie Reger Mosley, and Mary Ellen Barton, Hereford, Texas, 15 March 1988; Binford’s scrapbooks and files located in Archives, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, Fort Worth, Texas; "All Girl Rodeo a Knockout," clipping, n.p. n.d., Binford scrapbook; "Rodeo Spectators Stetsons Off to Feminine Bulldogger," Amarillo Daily News, 24 September 1947, 1;. Amarillo Daily News, 21 September 1947,7 & 20; Hoofs & Horns, September 1943, 4; "Girls Rodeo Aces Ride Tonight for $3,000 in Prizes," Amarillo Daily News, 25 September 1947, 1; "Record Crowd Hails Champion Cowgirls," Amarillo Daily News, 26 September 1947, 1 and 8; Willard Porter, "Dixie Lee Reger," Hoofs & Horns, September 1951, 6; "Girl's Rodeo Association," Hoofs & Horns, May 1948, 24; "Cowgirls Organize Group Here," n.p., n.d., Binford Scrapbook; "Girl's Rodeo Association," 24. Mrs. B. Kalland, "Rodeo Personalities," Hoofs & Horns, December 1951, 17; WPRA/PWRA Official Reference Guide, (Blanchard: Women's Professional Rodeo Association, 1990), vol. 7, 72; Margaret Montgomery files, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame; "GRA," Western Horseman, July 1959, 10-13. (Sanctioned events were as follows: Races: flag races, figure eight and cloverleaf barrel races, line reining. Roping events: catch as catch can, team tieing, figure eight catch. Rough stock events: bareback bronc riding, saddle bronc riding, bull riding); Jane Mayo, Championship Barrel Racing (Houston: Cordovan, 1961), 9; RCA Minutes, Prorodeo Hall of Fame; Mary King, "Cowgirls Have the New Look Too," Quarter Horse Journal, November 1948, 28-9; Hooper Shelton, Fifty Years a Living Legend (Stamford: Shelton Press, 1979), 31-32, 94; Houston Post, 2-13 February 1950; BBD, 11 September 1954, 62 & 16 October 1954, 48; New York Times, October 1954; WPRA/PWRA Official Reference Guide, vol. 7, 4; Powder Puff and Spurs, July and August 1950; Fog Horn Clancy, Rodeo Histories and Records (n.p.:n.p. 1949, 1950, 1951; Quarter Horse Journal, May 1954, 22; PRCA Official Media Guide (Colorado Springs: Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, 1987), 184; Copy of "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RODEO COWBOYS' ASSOCIATION, INC. AND THE GIRLS" RODEO ASSOCIATION," WPRA files, Colorado Springs, CO. Billie McBride Files, National Cowgirl Hall of Fame; NFR Committee Minutes, 14 January 1959, 5 May and 16 September 1959, March 16-18, 1960, 115 march 1968, Prorodeo Hall of Fame; WPRA/PWRA Official Reference Guide, vol. 7, 22-32; PRCA Official Media Guide (1987), 220; RCA Board minutes, 16 March, 24-27 November 1960, 6 January 1962, 10 August 1965, and 30 January, 13 May 1967. (Unfortunately, it is not possible to chronicle this achievement from the women's point of view. Although it is known that many WPRA representatives spent countless hours and traveled thousands of miles pleading their case to the PRCA before finally succeeding with the help of the Oklahoma City promoters, their names will never be known. Alone among all of the organizations and agencies involved with this project, the WPRA refused to allow this writer access to of any of its files, documents or minutes); PRCA Official Media Guide (1987), 195-217.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mllecompte1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Dear Ms Le Compte, I can understand how this has been a frustrating ordeal for you. I still believe you know a lot about the topic, and it's really a huge problem that Wikipedia manages not only not to tap in to this kind of knowledge as well as possible, but does even worse in driving people away. As for the unbundling: I can see how that would be an almost impossible task. As for the complaints that you have been citing your own research too much: I guess that's a point where a lot of our policy comes together and clashes. On the one hand, we want our articles to have sources, so other editors can check and we have some safeguard against dangerous or faulty information. We have had a lot of that in the past, and I guess as a community, it has hurt most people's ability to 'assume good faith', as they call it here. Then again, we've also had a lot of people promoting their own books and writings, for various reasons. So having one article with a lot of references with the same name, and then finding out that that person was actually the one who put them in, raises a lot of eyebrows. Content discussions are sometimes very civil, other times, like now, a very unpretty sight.

I´m afraid I don't think I won't be able to do much for the article myself. English is not my first language, and I do not have access to any offline sources that can't be found in a Dutch city library. I will try and keep an eye on the talk page and see what else I can do. --JoanneB 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding! I hope you will pass my comments on to the others & maybe somebody can do something with the "cruddy" article. Best Wishes.

Mary Lou

User:Commonsusage100

It's been listed in WP:AIV [7]. What's up with it? Doesn't appear to be flagged either. bibliomaniac15 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See below, this account had nothing to do with me. I wouldn't even know how to run a bot! --JoanneB 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Commonsusage100

Joanne, is this automated/bot-like account yours? What's the purpose behind uploading those images? They don't appear on first glance to be useful for Wikipedia?

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'b being bold and assuming someone is impersonating you and using Wikipedia for free hosting or something, so I'm deleting the images and blocking the account. I'm basing this on the facts that you're an admin and clearly know your way around policies and that the bot went into operation two hours since your last edit. --Wafulz 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I indeed had nothing to do with it, I was asleep at the time (hence my lack of response :)). My emailaddress is known because of my (limited) participation in mailing lists, I guess. --JoanneB 11:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question from Libs

How "free" are "public" Flickr pics? My AGF for that site is thin to null. Check, for instance, the Fickr source for this image: [[Image:Cliffburtonfree.jpg]]. I mean really? I've seen that poster umpteen times. According to the source page, the image was taken in Sept. 2006 and the man's been dead for over 20 years. The Flickr page still has the white text up in the top right corner and text at the bottom linking some sort of Metallica fansite. And yet our uploader, 75pickup (talk · contribs) has clearly smudged out the top text and cropped the bottom text, possibly in an attempt to cover it's copyvio'ness'ness'ness's'ssspardon the made up word. I have serious doubts about the "public" use of some of the image uploads I am seeing from flickr. Have there been any other rumplings about this within the "Wiki walls" of admindom? To me it's creating a growing 'integrity gap' within the project. 156.34.223.204 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you don't believe the image was taken 20 years after his death? But yeah, I think you're right, if it looks like a duck... See my recent edits, I've listed it. As for your general question: to be honest, I have no idea. To be honest, I didn't do much with image copyright before your questions 'dragged' me into it (don't worry, I don't mind a bit :)) I will start paying attention to it and let you know what I find, if anything. It's an important issue indeed. --JoanneB 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another User:Asad Aleem Sock

Asad Aleem, the user who was recently indef blocked for creating hoax articles and deliberately adding nonsense to actual articles has created a new sock in User:Asad Entertainment. See his contribs. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blocking him at this point is the best thing to do, but if he continues to create hoaxes, anywhere, he will be blocked and eventually banned, and I've told him so. --JoanneB 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cliff Burton image

I have a few questions about the things you said on the image page.

1. Doesn't non-commercial mean that we can use it, as long as we don't use it as an advertisement? After all, we are a non-profit organization.
2. How do you know the licence is wrong?
3. Is there a copyright template for that creative commons law? [8]

I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm just asking. Thanks for your time. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry, perhaps I should have left more information on your talk page. We are a non-profit organisation, but our goal is to be a free encyclopedia, and that our content can be used by anyone who wants to, even commercial projects. So images that can only be used for commercial purpose, are not suitable. See also an explanation here: Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Non-commercial_licenses. I know the license is wrong because the current license tag does allow commercial use, and the one on Flickr doesn't. Becuase non-commercial licenses like those are not allowed, there's no alternative that would work. As for the correctness of the Flickr license: I don't think that one is correct either, as for instance it says 'taken in 2006', which is basically not possible, but also the image says "www.visitIlikethat.com/metallica". That site says "All photographs are copyright of their respective copyright holders." In theory, it's possible that the site owner and this Flickr user are one and the same. However, the text that goes with the image appears to be lifted directly from the Spanish Wikipedia, without giving credit (again, it could be the other way around, but this: [9] was already the Wikipedia text before 26 september, when the text and image were uploaded to Flickr. So yeah, I think the Flickr license is faulty too, but even if it wasn't, under this non-commercial use license we can't use the image. --JoanneB 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

JuJube has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JuJube 12:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Request your opinion on proper use of article Talk Pages

This is probably a borderline case and not a huge abuse but, since I started it, I may as well finish it.

There is a perennial "Marvin was a hero" discussion over at Talk:Marvin Heemeyer. It comes up about once a month or so. I just recently deleted the latest incarnation with an edit summary warning that article talk pages are not to be used as a discussion forum per WP:NOT. Another editor reverted my deletion which I reverted back and he reverted yet again. It's obviously time to stop this since it is a nascent edit war.

So, I seek your advice. Should this sort of discussion be allowed to take place on article Talk Pages? I admit that I've seen much worse abuse on other article Talk Pages. I guess part of the issue is the perennial and futile nature of this thread. Nobody will ever convince anybody and it really is unrelated to the editing of the article.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've skimmed the talk page and I think you're right: talk pages should not be used as fora discussing the article subject, they should be used to discuss the article itself. However, it's a thin line. The content you deleted does sort of touch the article, in the sense that the issue of "does this article do him justice" - and while that has been discussed to great lengths on the talk page, I feel that that's still a valid question to ask - people posing those questions do just need to be gently reminded again and again that we need source, sources, sources ;-). So, personally, I'd leave that in for now. However, it would be a good idea to either delete or archive a couple of other sections, the one that just state how great he was, period. Removing those, as well as adding {{talkheader}} to the top of the page might (!) help stop this talk page from becoming or staying a memorial forum. --07:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:Richard, it would have been much more polite (instead of merely reverting) to actually attempt dialogue regarding this matter- especially given the alternative of dumping it into the laps of several otherwise uninvolved people. The discussion at hand isn't just a "Marvin was a hero" piece of cruft- a user had some rather serious complaints about the tone of the article, which was what his post was regarding. Statements like "How can you not take this into account in the way the article is written?" and "This article does no justice for a man" might betray a lack of NPOV on the editors account, but do convey a legitimate question as to whether or not the article has followed the proper point of view. The edit certainly wasn't vandalism, and it also wasn't off-topic- the user posed a question on the talk page that was ABOUT THE ARTICLE. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, if you want to, despite the fact that I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't try to talk to me about it before bringing in uninvolved outside folk. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with asking another Wikipedian for some feedback, if you're wondering if you're on the right track. There would have been a difference if I had jumped right in and joined the 'edit war', but I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Richard was looking for. I think the issue Richard raised is a valid one for several other sections on the talk page, as I stated above. --JoanneB 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There has been cruft added several times (basically just consisting of folks either saying "I love Heemeyer" or other such. Discussions that have no relevance to the article shouldn't go in there. But since the one in question that we were talking about actually WAS about the article, I did raise an objection to the wanton deletion of it. However, someone else a minute or so ago chose to pop out of the blue and completely ignore the user's questions, instead resorting to the same irritating mass-erasure that annoys countless users to no end. I'm in no mood to strain the limits of the 3RR over an anon. "Not a forum" indeed- I'll just move on and chalk up tonights events as another time when the Wikipedia Population has disappointed me. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you're disappointed (although the "Wikipedia Population" is quite a bit vaster than just two or three people) but I do want to give you some advice, for next time perhaps? You stated "Amen. Heemeyer may be dead, but his spirit will continue to embolden the common man." as a comment in the section that has been removed now, and your last comment was similar in discussing Marvin himself, but not the article at all. I think by doing so, you contributed to some people's feeling that the talk page was becoming a vigil, which it's not supposed to be. There shouldn't be any discussion on why he was or wasn't a hero, there should be discussion about which other sources say that he was or wasn't a hero, and how much weight should be attributed to those sources. There's a major difference, and from reading your comments throughout the talk page, I'm not entirely sure if you got that. --JoanneB 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joanne. I appreciate your advice and I agree especially with your last comment about why I judged the discussion to be off-topic. I didn't see the discussion as centering on why the article did or did not do Heemeyer justice. If it had focused more on that issue, I would have reacted differently.

For what it's worth, this is a comment that I left on User:FayssalF's talk page which explains why I came to seek advice with you and him....

To Ex-Nintendo Employee, I understand your feeling that I should have opened a dialogue with you. It was late at night and I was about to go to bed. I figured I'd sleep on it, ask for advice and deal with it in the morning.

If you wanted a dialoge, you could have left a message on my Talk Page and opened the dialogue yourself. I asked FayssalF for his opinion because I could see that this was getting disputatious and needed some advice as to what would be a good way to proceed. FayssalF is my "admin coach" and so I thought it absolutely proper to ask him and another admin that I respect (User:JoanneB) for advice about whether I was concerned about something important or being overly and obnoxiously rigid about the rules and guidelines for article Talk Pages. I was trying to restrain myself before I got disputatious about something that might not be all that important.

--Richard 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think I was right in my original assessment that the discussion was not appropriate for an article Talk Page but I continue to learn that I can be a bit harsh at times and can be more gentle in my approach to enforcement of policy issues.

--Richard 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for your helpful edit summary at WP:AIV. I have re-posted the issue to WP:ANI, as suggested. Smee 09:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome, I left the user a warning message. --JoanneB 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Saves me the trouble. Smee 09:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Marty Image

Oh thank god....i was hoping this could be the end of it, and i also didnt want to use this photo, but since its the best one ive taken, i thought it would be the best! thank you!! also, if you could, delete the rolly photo, because i have gained access to take a live photo of him in a couple days just for wiki, so i will upload it soon. BLT420 08:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of self-sufficient comics

Hi, I was just going back through my recent edits and I noticed that you removed the line about "Misfile" on the List of self-sufficient comics due to a lack of information on the cited source page. The source I cited is the best I could find; it states that for as long as the artist can support himself by donations -- without any other employment -- he will update the comic five days per week. If I reposted the citation with an additional comment that the artist IS currently updating five times per week (and has been for several months, now), would this be considered acceptable? -Nezuji 05:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the website that you used as a source states the following: Yes, I am moving at the end of May. After my move, I'll be unemployed. When I am jobless, I will update Misfile 5 times a week. However, I need income. If I can make enough money in donations, I will not look for a job until I really need the cash. During that time, I will update 5 times a week. If I can't make much money (and no, I won't know how much I really need until I get there) then I'll get a day job and go back to a mon, wed, fri schedule. It's all in your hands. I see that as a future plan (after his move, at the end of May, he will be jobless and he hopes to be self sufficient after that). The website also states an amount of money that would be needed (although it doesn't state for how long), $1600, and so far only half of that has been donated. To me, it looks like this artist plans and hopes to be self sufficient in the future, but he hasn't succeeded yet. --JoanneB 08:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the May in question is May 2006; he has been supporting himself for almost a year now. Also, the donation meter is reset on a monthly basis. The author has stated that it must reach $1100 minimum per month to keep him from getting another job. The $1600 monthly goal originally related to a bonus gift for all people donating $10 or more during the month, but is now simply an ideal target. -Nezuji 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense then. However, this particular source does not reflect that. Is there somewhere where that more up-to-date information is stated, because if it has to be deducted from the fact that he is actually updating five times a week, it borders very dangerously on original research or even crosses that border. --JoanneB 10:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I double-checked and it was actually May 2005, but fair enough. The only other citation I can offer right now is the author's comment on this page. I believe that it shows that the author has been supporting himself fully on proceeds from the comic as of at least August 2005. -Nezuji 02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)