Jump to content

User talk:MECU/Archive/2008/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Re: Unspecified source for Image:NAF_Mildenhall.jpg

Please note, I have noted the source on the image, the RAF Mildenhall Public Affairs Office. As a product of the federal government is is a public domain image. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or issues. Ndunruh (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the web page to the image (the images are under the 'Art' link at teh top). Please let me know if you'd like more info.Ndunruh (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The specific page is here [1] Ndunruh (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:BJU-2.png

Yesterday I asked you nicely to stop sending me messages about the devastation you are wreaking on the project by removing images. You sent another one today. I cannot convey to you the anger and hurt that I feel as a result of your actions. It would be best if you just do your damage and keep the news to yourself.

I'm sure you are doing what is right in your own eyes, but looking at your talk page, I don't seem to be the only one having problems with your activities.

This time I looked closely at your message. You seem to have a problem with the "source" of this image. You provide numerous links to places where the people you are trying to "help" can go to correct the "problems" you find. None of those links say anything at all about "sources," at least as far as I can see. Please, if you are going to keep removing things that people contribute in good faith, let us know what you are talking about when you complain about "sources." This is especially important for images that were uploade long ago, when "sources" were not required. And of course, if the image was uploaded before "sources" were so important to people like you, they who uploaded them have no practical way of re-finding the source. Lou Sander (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter (full contents)

The College football WikiProject Newsletter
Issue V - April 2008
Project news
  • This month is spring practice season for most college football teams. Be sure to update your team's season article and grab a few pictures if you're lucky enough to be on hand for a spring game. Remember, even the worst picture of all is better than the picture that wasn't taken.
  • The number of College Football Good Articles being added to the project continues to grow. Nine new GAs were added in March, bringing the total of GAs produced this year to 29. At the current rate, the project will produce 116 GAs this year, nearly three times the number of GAs that were produced in the past two years. Keep up the great work!
  • With all the new GAs and FAs produced by the project, reviewers and commenters are continuously needed. Keep an eye on the project talk page, WP:FAC and WP:GAC for new college football articles to review and comment upon. Even one suggestion or support message goes a long way toward helping create a new Featured or Good Article.
  • Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham and Skip Holtz need a Good Article review.
  • A discussion is ongoing about the possibility of creating a master team list for Division 1-AA, Division 2, Division 3, and NAIA football teams.
  • A discussion about article notability is ongoing on the project talk page. Editors are encouraged to participate.
From JKBrooks85

Welcome to the latest issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter! I hope that you're enjoying regular updates about the goings on of college football on Wikipedia, but if not, feel free to add your name to the "no delivery" section on the newsletter signup page.

I encourage everyone to make regular visits to the College Football Portal and perhaps make it your Wikipedia entry page instead of using the Main Page as your gateway. Nominations for selected articles and pictures are always welcome, and can serve as a great way to show off that new article you just shepherded to Good Article status or the great picture you took the last time you were at a game.

Comments and suggestions on improving the newsletter are always welcome, and help me improve it on a monthly basis. Keep contributing and editing, and don't hesitate to contact me or post on the College Football Wikiproject talk page if you need help or just want someone to look over your article.

New high-rank articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not gather people together to add sources?

Moved to WT:IMG#Why not gather people together to add sources?. MECU≈talk 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource 
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace" News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones 
Dispatches: Featured content overview WikiProject Report: Australia 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More images stuff

Moved to WT:IMG#More images stuff. MECU≈talk 14:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic image pages

Moved to WT:IMG#Dynamic image pages. MECU≈talk 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Falcon Stadium Image

Hi. I saw you swapped images in the Falcon Stadium article. I don't think we needed to remove the other image from the article so I added it back in the text. Thanks for getting that good image of the Stadium. MECU≈talk 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I though to put the aerial in the body, but I ashamedly admit I didn't do so out of laziness. Thanks for pointing it out to me. --David Shankbone 15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fxing the problem

I don't know all of the lingo. I did try to reword it after I figured out how to do it myself, but I'm not sure why it is so poorly worded. Does the edit page appear differently if you have different skins? Is there some way to make the drop down menu include all of the copyright tags? Is there some reason it doesn't include a fill in the blank tag or an "other" choice? After fixing mine and spending about an hour trying to figure out these other issues I gave up. I'd rather edit viral pathogen and West African flora articles. Why not just stick with things I know I can do, especially when they are areas where Wikipedia is either falling down hard or completely negligent. Interestingly I can also help with some of the featured articles on African topics that I know less about. These are things I know. I wish others knew how to beta test Wikipedia for users better, but I can't do everything, and it would impact my ability to edit what I do know. However, thanks for the suggestion. --Blechnic (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can upload, it is finding the license that was the problem, as it is not one of the choices, then it was not clear how to get it on the page once it was not in the drop down menu. Wikipedia seems overladen with the wrong details about how to do things. Anyway, I figured it out. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New venue

Trying to relieve orange bar stress by finding a new venue. It should be somewhere fairly central so others can join in, but not so busy that it gets swamped by other conversations (that's what I think would happen at WT:IMG). We should also have a front page where we can consolidate the important points we've discussed here. Any ideas? Carcharoth (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realise what WP:IMG was. I thought it was WP:IMAGE! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group will be perfect for our needs, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you started a new discussion there. Thanks. Should get to that in a few days. Your orange bar must be lighting up again, so I'll quietly retreat now. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit!

Hi MECU, thanks for your edit to "How to acquire a free image. Sorry this is so late in coming, somehow it escaped my attention on my watchlist. Anyway, it looks good and thanks again, R. Baley (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbados Dust graph website sourcing taken care of

Found the USGS site which it came from. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are similar to vandalism

Dear MECU,

You might feel that you are enforcing the rules, but in reality your actions are closer to vandalism. Like most of the editors, I am pretty busy with non-Wikipedia stuff, so forcing me to undo your image deletion requests - caused by YOU not reading the image comments is simply not fair. Please, next time when you want to label yet one more image for deletion, check the Summary first ...

Sincerely, Dimawik (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To compare my image tagging to vandalism is disgusting and a personal attack. If you feel so strongly my work is vandalism, please report me to WP:AIV. If you care to discuss a specific image please let me know. Sorry I missed this for a few days, I just noticed it. New edits to a talk page typically go at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to make a new section on a talk page is to click the "+" at the top of the page. MECU≈talk 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:NHYOKOAIR.jpg

I'm contesting your deletion. I've changed it and it's good to go. Please review it and withdrawal your deletion request. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this was resolved, but I have to ask you, much like other posters have, why do you do this? I notice you are constantly doing this to government photos (which are free to use). You're just adding a level of frustration that is making wikipedia a hostile place. Would you mind laying off and finding something more constructive to do? Perhaps attempting to find sources for these photos instead of deleting good content? Or searching recent edits for vandalism?
Basically it comes down to this - what you're doing isn't constructive - it's destructive and very, very aggravating to people that are working very hard in wikipedia. Although you're actions are technically correct, technically, jaywalkers should be fined - but we all know that punishing trivial infractions only breeds contempt for authority and the system in general. I sincerely hope you reconsider your actions Jimmyjones22 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Having sources for a photo is not "trivial", it is absolutely, 100% necessary. The onus to provide the sources is on the uploader, not on someone else. Him tagging the photos is a way to alert you, and others, that a source needs to be listed. What MECU is involved with is totally appropriate, it is 100% constructive, and if you just provided sources from the outset (as required when you upload: "Link to the source webpage or explain how you found and identified the work") there would be no aggravation on your part. Metros (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Aggravation on my part? I'm sorry to have involved you, Metros - you obviously have no idea what has been going on and how this is going to effect wikipedia contributors. I imagine it must be difficult to see things from a non-admin point of view. I'll try to break it down -
1) Admin X leave message saying X images will be deleted
2) if someone is here to contest it, article may be saved, if they are absent for a week, images are lost.
3) Either way, you have disgruntled users who have had their valuable contributions violated.
Flagging images isn't going to solve the problems - a change in the upload process and having people that find the problem take initiative to fix the problem is. When I first uploaded my images six months ago, I put a government tag on them. What was the point of this if I also have to go into the comment section and write the same thing that the government tag says it is? Anyone could just as easily lie for both and get away with it. You should seriously start to change this redundant policy - no one every found common sense in a rule book. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What you deem "destructive" and "unhelpful" and "harmful" is actually important, valuable and recognized as critical to the project. (For proof, read the current WP:ARBCOM case where they validate this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision.) All images must have a source and license. The source must confirm the license. Just because any user can upload and slap a "PD-USGov" image on it doesn't make it true, and there are many, many users that abuse or are just confused about licensing. I am correcting this. I've seen state government images applied with this tag. I've seen other country government images applies with this tag (Germany, Australia, Canada....), all very incorrect. So, instead of just fixing it myself, which would be very time intensive and possibly a waste of time since sometimes I don't know where to even start looking, I'm trying to teach editors "to fish", and not just giving them a fish. There seems to be a whole lot of lack of WP:AGF going on around lately. People assume I'm (and others) trying to destroy articles and harm/ruin Wikipedia, when the absolute opposite is true. People come and attack me instead of going "Huh? I don't understand. Please help." I would, am, and have always been happy to help (even when people act like jerks to me), but most don't go to that end and just fly off the handle. "Your article" is in horrible shape when the images are in such poor shape, and you should want to correct the problem instead of fighting the messenger. I've been doing this for over a year (though not so heavily as I currently am) and it's always the same story. But Wikipedia has backed me in confirming my actions are correct (not formally, but in the implicit lack of (legitimate) complaining of my actions). I have never acted in poor form to anyone, responded to all comments, and acted politely despite rarely receiving the same. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. For example, fixing your image took about 30 seconds, yet you have taken 30 minutes (at least) in writing horrible notes to me, fighting other deletion request I have made because you now have a "vendetta" against me, when all you needed to do was spend the 30 seconds. Where is the un-constructive actions? Certainly enforcing policy is a valid task. And it's not "technically" correct, it's wholly correct. It's not jaywalking, it's theft. Taking an image and putting it on here with a "PD-USGov" image without support is potentially a copyright violation. You (I am speaking in general, not specially to any user) are taking someone's work without the legal right to do so. Would you go into an art museum and take a painting off the wall without the legal right to do so? I'm sorry this went on so long, but the complaints recently have mounted and are very frustrating, since it's a lack of understanding on the other editors end about the policy and how things work, and a lack of trying to solve the problem and more attack the messenger. I hope you can now understand the situation. Thank you for your time. MECU≈talk 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do. But you're going about it the wrong way. Look at this article. Half of the images are gone. great article, but it has been completely destroyed by you. you're right. I agree with you, Metros - it's not trivial - it's malicious. I'm just lucky I was around - I'm one of only three people who have ever contributed to the article whose pictures he proposed for deletion, If i was gone for a week, those images would have been lost. Many people aren't so lucky - they log on once a month and find their images, which are obviously sourced from a government site, gone.
I'm not asking you to just completely stop what you're doing - I'm asking you to find something constructive to do. And despite what you say, only you and your buddies call it constructive. I'll stick to the jaywalker allegory - it's waisting valuably energy that you could be spent doing any number of valuable and highly constructive things.
And I don't have a vendetta against you. I may have been angry last night, that much is true, but honestly - comparing use of government images to stealing paintings? You're right, it takes 30 seconds - I did it in 30 seconds. You could have done it in 30 seconds. Every time I see a mistake in wikipedia, I correct it on the spot - Why can't you do the same? You're a Marine - you should know what an 'On the spot' correction is. Like the Nasa Image - In the amount of time it took you to harass that user about it's legitimacy, you could have done the same thing i did and find a place where it stated that the image was free use! but that's right, don't take my advice, I 'have a vendetta against you'... Jimmyjones22 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
additionally - it took me 30 seconds to find the source on that one. And I wasn't even involved in the issue until I seen you were doing the same thing to him that you did to me. 30 seconds. You debated with that guy for days and I settled it in a few clicks. Wouldn't that be a better use of an admin's time rather than playing flag-tag with people's images? Jimmyjones22 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I, at least, am not accusing you of trying to destroy Wikipedia. I know you believe passionately that you're only trying to help.
Now: you have requested that, instead of spending all this time berating you, people just fix the problem. You have requested that people try to understand where you're coming from. Can I ask you, then, rather than spending all this time justifying your actions, to spend a few minutes trying to understand where these complainers are coming from?
You keep mentioning AGF. The reason so many people are so upset at what you and the other image policy enforcers are doing is that it seems very much as if you are not assuming good faith, either. In your eyes (so it seems), every improperly-tagged image is guilty (until proven innocent) of being a copyright violation. An image which was uploaded in good faith, perhaps in perfect accord with Wikipedia policy at the time it was uploaded, is suddenly marked as a "problem", to be deleted in one week's time if it is not corrected. And as the image policies continue to evolve and become more stringent, this cycle may be repeated several times: a non-infringing image may end up being tagged as a "problem", requiring "correction", multiple times as the number of ways it has to prove its innocence continues to mount. (Indeed, just as anyone can slap a "PD-USGov" tag on an image, anyone can slap a PD-self tag, too. I wonder how long it will be before every photograph I've taken and uploaded to Wikipedia with a PD-self tag will be flagged and deleted within one week if I don't notice and provide whatever proof is then demanded that I myself did, in fact, take the photograph.)
Furthermore, it really does seem to a lot of people (and with decent reason) that what you are doing is destructive. The notion that "all images must have traceable copyright status" is an abstract one. So most people are not going to see it as a serious problem if some images don't. But just about everybody likes to have attractive images in articles -- they do add value. ("A picture is worth a thousand words.") So if your sole contribution to Wikipedia is to create extra work for editors and to delete images, a lot of people (perhaps a majority of people) are going to view your net contribution as wholly negative. (Notice I do not say your contribution is negative -- I know you don't see it that way -- but lots of people will.)
Yes, strict reading of policy is in agreement with what you are doing. The Arbcom will not tell you or betacommandbot to stop what you're doing. But if you insist on wrapping yourself in a mantle of righteousness, if you continue to dismiss your critics and patronizingly tell them that all they have to do is fix their problem, I'm afraid you're going to continue to get flamed at this level, or worse. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ::: While I agree that pictures used on Wikipedia should not go against copyright laws, I think the gun-ho way you go about things is totally wrong. You deleted three pictures I had uploaded to an article being considered for GA, despite the fact I had placed a hang-on tag on them and emailed the copyright agreement to Wikipedia. Within 24-hours of your speedy (and premature) deletion, the pictures had been restored by a Wikipedia administrator. You talk about how there should be more 'good faith' on Wikipedia, but you actually show less good faith than almost anyone I have have so far encountered on this site. --seahamlass 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This comment by seahamlass is a deliberate misstatement of fact. The images were marked "for Wikipedia use only" (or "non-commercial use" or "educational use") for which I have previously explained (and been supported) that these images are routinely deleted on the spot with such license. MECU≈talk 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image-tagging

MECU -- you say that what you're doing is "important, valuable and recognized as critical," but you don't support that. In the looong page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision, the word "critical" does not appear. "Important" is used in connection with tagging images that are lacking the proper documentation, but that's as strong as the language gets. No "critical," no "necessary," no "Wikipedia is in imminent danger of total destruction if this isn't done." There is no real threat to Wikipedia here. In order for WP to show that it's making a good-faith effort to comply with copyright law, the rules have to be in place. Beyond that, it's not clear that anything else is needed. The fact of the matter is that it's rare for anyone who owns the copyright on a photograph to make any kind of a fuss about that copyright being violated on a web site. This isn't a situation like TV shows on YouTube or popular music songs being pirated. There is rarely, if ever, any loss of "commercial opportunity" involved in out-of-copyright distribution of photos on the web, so no one cares much about it.
In short, you aren't doing Wikipedia any good. If there were some real and present danger to Wikipedia caused by images lacking full documentation, then you would be protecting Wikipedia from that danger. But there is no such danger, so you're doing harm rather than good.
If you think I'm wrong about any of this, I'd be curious to hear your argument. I'll watch this page for a while to see what you have to say. But "rules is rules" is not an argument. Neither is vague arm-waving about something bad that might happen. I'd like to see some indication that there's a real, credible danger that you're protecting WP from. RedSpruce (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to have more than rules in place, you must enforce rules for them to have any meaning. I would disagree that it's "rare for anyone who owns the copyright on a photograph to make any kind of fuss about that copyright being violated on a web site." I've seen the angry emails in OTRS where we have violated someone's copyright. I've deleted the images that violated their copyright. I have to say "Sorry we had the image wrongfully" (loose quote). It's not "might", it happens. MECU≈talk 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So your justification for all the disruption you are causing is some "angry emails"? That seems inadequate to me. I don't doubt that it happens, but I don't see any reason to believe that this is a big deal.
I agree completely that the rules should be enforced; that is, when someone notifies Wikipedia (angrily or otherwise) that a photo is being used without permission on Wikipedia, that photo should be removed. I don't see any indication that this level of enforcement wouldn't be fully sufficient. But I'm happy to be corrected. Do you know of any evidence that such a level of enforcement is likely to get Wikipedia into trouble? RedSpruce (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, none. As long as Wikipedia (through OTRS and other Foundation volunteers) takes stuff down on request, there is no problem. It is the uploaders who could be pursued by those with a grievance, so individual Wikipedians need to be careful what they upload. This is why OTRS volunteers should not just quietly take pictures down, but make clear why they have been taken down - this improves things in future and allows people to correct their behaviour and become aware of the extent of the problem. It would be possible to analyse all the edit summaries and deletion logs that mention OTRS, but better still would be for OTRS to release anonymous statistics on what areas cause most problems. That would allow the efforts of the wider community of Wikipedians (indeed, Wikimedians) to help out in those areas. MECU, are you involved enough in OTRS to ask about whether someone could produce stats to help an initiative like that? Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
RedSpruce has this exactly right. MECU: how would you feel about changing the wording in your tags from "Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged" to "Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted"? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not "my" tag, it's a standard CSD tag. You would have to propose the change to remove the deletion deadline at WP:CSD. I would be against it, because having no deadline doesn't work. I created a tag to request better sourcing images {{bsr}} last summer. If you look in the category that it adds images to, some I put in the last summer are still there. Why should someone correct it? It could sit there forever and there's no reason to correct it. If it gets deleted, or possibly could, someone has motivation to correct it. MECU≈talk 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hold on! Who says you have to use a standard CSD tag?
The tag I was talking about is the template you're dropping on people's talk pages. That can obviously say whatever you want, impose whatever deadline you want (including none at all, as I was suggesting).
You're not tagging these improperly-sourced images for speedy deletion the instant you find them, are you? That's wholly unnecessary, and if that's what you're doing, it's even more understandable that hordes of people are infuriated at you. Just because an image is improperly tagged, it does not follow that you must delete it.
You said, "having no deadline doesn't work". Doesn't work at what? What's the real goal here? In my opinion, the goal is not "Every image must have its copyright and license information filled out according to the image sourcing policy du jour". That may be an important goal, but it's a subgoal; it's an implementation detail along the way to the real goal. The real goal is simply, "Wikipedia images should not violate copyright". If we had 1,000 improperly-tagged images, and none of them violated copyright, we would not necessarily have a problem at all, let alone a problem that required speedy deletions and infuriated editors. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Who says I have to invent my own personal tag(s)? The standard tags are both better than something I could come up with and "the standard." It's like coming up with my own MOS. Further, those that have problems with the tags should address that at the appropriate location, not at the messenger.
No, I cannot impose whatever deadline I want, CSD has set the deadline at 7 days. You should address that problem and your complaints at WP:CSD.
No, I'm never using speedy-deletion except for blatant copyright violation. Yes, an improperly tagged image is grounds for deletion. Please go read the CSD Image requirements.
It doesn't work at getting the problem fixed. Images without a clear source that verifies the license can sit around forever. The goal should be having every image in compliance with every policies. How do we know if the images violate copyright if they're not sourced correctly (and completely)?
Again, no speedy deletion has been done. Typically I mark "no source" and under CSD I4 this gives 7 days (again, not my decision). Although it's called "Speedy", there is a 7 day wait. Please don't confuse "speedy" of CSD I4 with "speedy deletion" as "deletion on the spot." I know it's confusing, I wish it was labeled something else. You can bring up the issue (which I'm sure has been brought up many times before) at CSD. MECU≈talk 12:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your bloody enormous ugly template

Could you point me to where it is required that even those artworks clearly in the public domain because of Bridgeman v Corel require "downloaded from website X" information? Because I intend to ask there why such an apparently asinine requirement exists. Thanks! Relata refero (disp.) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more verifiability. We need to be able to verify that this is indeed the image we are claiming it is. Simply giving a reference to a book, or to a gallery displaying the artwork, should be sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see this in policy, please. Am I to understand that scans or photographs of artwork unavailable otherwise on the web would be considered unverifiable? The point is that the name and details provided identify it as being PD through age; as, indeed does the very stylistic appearance of the work, not to mention the fact that it deals with the 1857 mutiny. If there is any such restriction, I intend to get it changed. If there is not.... --Relata refero (disp.) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the template says very clearly: Location=Leeds AG. So can someone explain why a "source" is required? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
For your specific image at Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG, "location=" is not a valid field in the {{information}} tag and does not show up on the image description page. You should edit and move it to "source" for starters. Further, what is "Leeds AG"? Does it have a website? Did you get the image from that website? Is it a book? How can someone verify the license tag if they don't know (and you don't say) how you acquired the image? That's the whole problem of not providing a sufficient source. You may know, but you need to explain it to someone that may not know what you know. It's not a whole lot of extra work to provide the website (or book or...) information when you upload as well. MECU≈talk 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is in the image description page, so you should perhaps modify your method to catch it.
  • "AG" is the commonly-used contraction for "art gallery". If an image is beyond the scope of our policies because of age, why the hell must someone verify the license tag? I provided the name of the image, the date, the name of the artist, (who died in 1895), and the name of the art gallery containing the painting. I see no reason to provide further information, as it is then easily verifiable that this image is not problematic.
  • Especially because I can't, since I uploaded it off my hard drive and haven't the vaguest idea where I got it from - as its public domain and doesn't usually matter! Its a whole lot of work if I - or the many other scholars who keep PD images of this sort without "URL" or scan information - have to try and locate where we got it from.
  • I assure you I approve wholeheartedly of your work keeping inappropriate non-free images off WP, and indeed believe in the de:WP solution to images. (And much else, they run a tight ship over there.) But that doesn't mean that this is not inefficient.
I trust you will make the necessary modifications to your approach when possible.
I would also suggest that it would be a massive PR plus if you could check, perhaps, the date of an editor's earliest contribution, or his edit count, so regular users could be greeted not by the same bloody enormous ugly template you provide IPs, but by something much more discreet and personal. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"AG" may be a common contraction to you (and others), but it is ambiguous to many. Can you understand that there are many possibilities of what "AG" could stand for? The problem was that that information was not displayed on the image description page. Having to click "edit" to see all possible information is a terrible pain. There are 17,000+ images in the "US Government" category alone. Can you understand that all information should be visible when someone visits the image description page? (I don't mean for any of this to sound rude, just trying to find some middle ground between us.) Along that side, all template notifications are standard notifications, have recently been rewritten (by others) and everyone receives the same message. Having to verify the "age" of the contributor (age=how long they've been around Wikipedia) before notifying them is very inefficient. I would agree that there could be some other possible technical solution, such as not giving the exact same message 50 times in a row to a user. Give them the standard one first, and then a script/bot checks to see if that message already exists on the page, and if it does, something along the lines of "Hey, this image also has <x> problem. Please take a look and try to fix it as well. Thank you." MECU≈talk 13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. And you may be interested in Aktiengesellschaft. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see the image use policy which states (I'm not directly quoting) all images must have a source and license. If the source is "Leeds AG", how can we verify that? A source of that (and only that) is insufficient. Administrators and editors have generally accepted this insufficient sourcing information to fall under CSD I4 as "no source" because it isn't complete. I have proposed a change to help make it more clear at CSD where someone may provide a "source" but it's not sufficient. MECU≈talk 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, thank you. I will ask a few pointed questions there.
Note, however that how you verify "Leeds AG" is by taking a flight to Leeds, walking up the Headingley Road, and going up to the second floor, the Victorian Gallery. This is not very different from how people normally research things in academia, or at least did before inter-library loans. Young people today, with their internet and their Google...

Relata refero (disp.) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And where there is no online source, we have to trust the editor who refers to a book or other source. But where we can find an online source, it is a courtesy to add it to allow verifiability. To put this another way, anyone trying to follow up the information provided in an article might be interested in the provenance of the image. For old images, particularly artworks, provenance is important. I realise it is not always possible to give the entire history of an image or artwork or object from creation (sometimes hundreds of years ago) to the present day, but when we can, that only bolsters the stability and credibility of the article and its images. We are wandering far from deletion discussion here, as this is more about credibility and verifiability, but ultimately more rigorous image sourcing will have the side effect of avoiding image taggin like MECU is doing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Carcharoth, but my point stands: why then is the possibility that the image is not from an online source, or an unknown-to-the-uploader online source relevant to deletion? (Provenance-wise, all we are concerned about is that the reproduction is a faithful reproduction, not that it has a clean chain.) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think there are better ways to improve sourcing than using image deletion tags, and I am trying to persuade MECU of this. He does have the point though that something should be done. The best way to avoid deletion tagging is not to leave stuff for someone else to do, but to do image sourcing ourselves (including MECU) and to organise others to do this. By the way, did you see the links I added to the Armitage Retribution picture? Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My first thought is that the uploader/author is the best editor to provide the sourcing information. Contacting them to have them provide the information is the best solution (how we contact we can discuss, sure). The onus has always been on the uploader of the image to provide the source, license and rationale (if needed). There are lots of images where the sourcing information is "adequate" (but not good or great) that it could be possible for someone to improve upon, an example is a military image that states it's from <x> branch of military, but then just gives the military identification number without linking to the page the image is from. But on images such as the above mentioned, I wouldn't have called it "adequate" and there are many more of this type. To be honest, this is the first image in the thousands I've seen where the sourcing information was hidden from display, so not a totally common occurrence in my view. So why does it matter? Why should all images have "great" sourcing information? Because images like the above examples would be deleted from Commons in a second, and all free images should exist on Commons (those with encyclopedic value, user selfpics for a anti-example).
Sourcing information must be complete and verifiable, otherwise the image can be deleted. The requirement is that it could be verified, maybe not easily (like this image above), must like "replaceability", that it could with the information given. I am hesitant to agree that *I* (or a large group) should go around and figure out a valid source for images (especially if none are given), for several reasons: 1) The uploader knows best. 2) Even a workgroup of 100 doing 1 image each a day would take *years* to go through all the image (if not decades), 3) There is no guarantee the workgroup would find the correct source of that image, and 4) Enlisting the uploader to fix their own images gets the person who knows best to fix the image. Any problem with the 7 day minimum wait is a problem with CSD. I point to the failed attempt with another tag of {{bsr}}, there are images from last summer still in there. Will they ever be fixed? How can someone other than the uploader provide the true source? It would at best be a guess. MECU≈talk 13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But surely you understand that if I (for example) started such a group of people willing to fix such images (and in many cases it is trivially easy to improve the source information - no guessing or estimation required), and we started fixing images, then your tagging and (after 7 days) deletion efforts would directly conflict with us and undermine our work. That is why I am asking you to consider helping such an effort, rather than continue with your method. I have no problem with tagging, it is the deletion bit I have problems with. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Have you seen the examples I gave below? Those images were trivially easy to fix, and deletion would have been a travesty. If you have people willing to fix images, then backlogs can be tackled and reduced and worked through. Deletion is not the only answer. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it may be possible to find a source of an image. What do we do when we can't find it? I still think it's dangerous for anyone else to supply a source when they could be guessing. True, there may be times when you're just "cleaning up sourcing information", but there would be times that you would be guessing. Plus, again, we are then not teaching the uploaders to fish, we're giving them a fish. The onus has always been on the uploader to provide source and license information. How would you find a source for Image:0000charles graner.jpg? There are about 17,000 images in Category:United States government images. Why not enlist the help of the uploaders (let's say there were 2000 uploaders) to help resolve the problems? I don't see anyone tagging images as "no source" as being a conflict with other cleaning up sources. They would then have a location to work from. One group would be the "finders" and the others "fixers." Does that make sense? MECU≈talk 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh.

You just noted on Ta bu shi da yu that Image:NSIDC_logo.png doesn't have source info. Dude, that's a logo for a U.S. government organisation!!!! Surely commonsense would dictate that this is actually in the public domain, like the PD template says? - 122.107.11.230 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one could guess that, but we don't guess around here. We require such information on all images. You can read some of the discussion about which may make this more clear. MECU≈talk 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
May I politely suggest writing a FAQ, or asking people to help you write a FAQ? Referring back to Betacommand again, one of the issues there was that he referred people generically to a large set of archives (and was not more specific than that). This is fair enough if you are overwhelmed with queries, but is still not really fair on the questioner. Specific answers, rather than "look at the archives/other discussions" are always best. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the sort of change you were looking for, or do you want a page proving that it is a US government organisation? Carcharoth (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A FAQ is a good idea. I suggested one a long time ago at one of the central question places but it never went anywhere. If I start one, perhaps others will help in. Without stating as such, the big red blurbs at the top of my talk page attempt to cover some such things. Perhaps #1 on the FAQ should be "Don't start a section titled "Uh huh." It's not descriptive and could be considered rude." The discussions I was referring to are above, here is on for example with a generic answer. MECU≈talk 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ looks good. The example is particularly helpful. One thing I would disagree with, though, is that Commons is much more strict. In my opinion, from what I've seen, they are less strict about sourcing than you are. Some good examples from recent stuff is this (the Commons image page - only using a generic website link) compared to this (the Wikipedia image page - using a link to the actual page containing the images). The reason the Wikipedia page is better is because I added that link. The Commons page seems to be a copy of what was on Wikipedia, and so it seems lots of free pictures on Wikipedia are being transferred to Commons without things like this being checked. Another example of imprecise sourcing on Commons is here (warning: old page version), which has only a generic link to the catalog entry for the book, rather than a link to an image page. Compare that to Image:Bodmer mandan males.JPG, where I linked directly to the LOC page. And also look at Image:Bison dance of the Mandan indians in front of their medecine lodge 0051v.jpg, where I've improved the sourcing. What makes you think the other images on Commons are any better sources than that, or that lots don't need to be improved to meet your standards? Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As a Commons admin, most of these images would have been marked at "no source" long ago (and not by just me). Commons is all about media, so of course this is what they do all the time and their processes are much more developed (though less supported by lack of number of editors/admins). Just because you can find a few examples of images here that are better sourced than images there, doesn't prove the point. It's similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Further, it doesn't matter the state, it matters the ideal (policy). MECU≈talk 13:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Image deletion

I'm the uploader of the hubble pictures. What do I put for the author, description, and stuff? Mattkenn3 (talk to me, I'm confused) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon MECU for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Ralphie - that Colorado State Senate resolution is really neat, and the article's got great free-use images. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is verifiable, I cited the precise document that I used in creating the image. Please restore the image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JA.Davidson (talk • contribs)
What are you referring to? What image? What is verifiable? Please sign all your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. MECU≈talk 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The contact link does not work. How can we recover the image so I can show the info? John (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:0_21_080331_gold_necklace.jpg at Jiskairumoko

Hi thanks for raising questions about this image. I thought I had provided suitable source information, but I must have been wrong. The photograph was taken by Mark Aldenderfer. I was his Ph.D. student when I was working at Jiskairumoko. I actually did some minor processing of the image, like adding the scale bar, but Mark took the shot. He has happily agreed to let me use the image, I think I have properly included source information, and we are hoping to share it on the entry for Jiskairumoko. I would appreciate it if the image could be reinstated on that page. I tried to make the appropriate changes. Please let me know if everything looks ok. NathanCraig (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable deletion of NASA Images

Image:NapukaISS002-E-6371.PNG, as well as the following images that were deleted: Image:RangiroaISS002-709-52.PNG Image:RapaISS004-E-12980.PNG Image:RarakaISS004-E-6701.PNG Image:RaroiaISS006-E-9321.PNG Image:RavahereISS009-E-6062.PNG Image:ReaoISS002-E-8953.PNG Image:ReitoruISS010-E-5457.PNG are all in the public domain because they were created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". Please check the guidelines at NASA JSC Webpage: [2] None of the pictures deleted hid the fact that they were NASA pictures. Credit to NASA was given even in the caption of each one of the pictures. Mohonu (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read User talk:MECU/Image FAQ #2. You should address your concerns with the admin that deleted the images at User talk:east718. If you have more questions or confusion after reading my FAQ and contacting the other admin, please let me know. Thanks for your understanding, cooperation and contributions to Wikipedia. MECU≈talk 12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

USGOV

If the license is USGOV, the source is US Gov. There is no need to flag them as unsourced. Its inherent to the license. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


MECU, you tagged an image I uploaded for NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.) The file is from a U.S. government website, and as far as I know, it is therefore in the public domain as long as indicated, which it currently is. If further action needs to be taken, I'm not sure what it is. Sorry, I'm not really familiar with these procedures. If you have further questions, let me know on my talk page. Chrissy385 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Generic reply to all users whose image I marked and have similar questions:
The problem is that the current source information isn't very specific on where you got the image. Yes that agency is probably a federal government agency, so the image is likely free, but you still (and always) need to provide enough sourcing information so that the license information can be verified. Would you please add the HTML website page that you found the image on? Thanks. If you need more help or have more questions, please ask. MECU≈talk 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MECU, I'm confused about what you are talking about, because the image does appear on a Wikipedia page. See National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Is it possible you were referring to an older version of the image? I may have previously uploaded an old version that is no longer linked to any WIKI page and should therefore be erased. As for the image that appears on the NIOSH page-- I don't know the actual URL of the image on the NIOSH website because I uploaded it from a NIOSH computer with access to their intranet, but you will see if you visit www.cdc.gov/niosh that it's all over their site in various forms. Hope this clears things up. Chrissy385 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MECU, thanks for your note. You're right, I am confused, and I don't really understand what it is you want me to do. The image is a U.S. government image and is therefore in the public domain. This is indicated on the image. What else needs to be done to give proper credit? If you are looking for a URL to use, you can use this one; I just used a cropped version without the full agency named spelled out. Will that work? Chrissy385 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NREL Campus Image

Hi. You tagged the NREL Campus image I uploaded as questionable in regards to its copyright status. I figured NREL is a National Lab so the images on the site should be public domain but this is apparently not true. Even images I've uploaded with permission from the webmaster at Sandia are apparently in violation due to copyright rules. Frankly, copyright rules are beyond me but I promise not to upload anymore images from National Labs. Cheers. Mrshaba (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Colorado Buffaloes

I removed from the article uncited claims about CU fans doing things such as dumping urine on NU fans. At the same time, I removed uncited claims regarding NU fans displaying inappropriate signs regarding the late Sal Aunese. You chose to restore the uncited text regarding the latter. It is neither fair nor encyclopedic to allow the uncited claims of one side to remain while deleting the uncited claims of the other side. Nevertheless, rather than edit warring, I have added citation tags. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the text about the signs. If someone does come up with a source, it can be put back in. I appreciate your reply. You're one who is on my "Trusted Editors List" (which really only exists in my head) since I've noticed your positive contribution to quite a few of the articles that I watch. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube link in Abbas Kiarostami article

As per ur suggestions at Wikipedia:MCQ#Youtube_link_to_a_video_in_Abbas_Kiarostami, I reverted the the link but User:BehnamFarid added it back. User:Hux deleted the link but User:BehnamFarid added it back again. Finally i deleted the link again and posted a warning message on BehnamFarid's talk page. Since i have reverted twice and i dont wanna violate 3RR, i want to know what steps can be taken if BehnamFarid adds the youtube link again in the article. Can i request the blocking of user in such a scenario???.....if so what are steps needed to request a block???? ....I have never reported a user for blocking before.....thats why i am asking you becos u r a admin and u know better....thanx Gprince007 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I submit that this Gprince007 is most likely suffering from some form of acute obsession. I have told him time and again that I am not bound by what s/he may or may not believe and that s/he should address her/his concerns to YouTube; YouTube being a legal and responsible website, they will investigate the matter and should they come to the conclusion that the video at issue were uploaded to YouTube illegally, they remove this video as a matter of policy; in such case, we shall remove the link as a "dead" link in due course. Gprince007 has never stated where her/his beliefs may be based on; for me his statement amounts to a mere assertion by someone who even feels justified to remove my text from the talk page of the entry on Abbas Kiarostami (please see the history of this talk page and the explicit statement by Gprince007, announcing his despicable act of applying censure to my signed texts), on the most risible and puerile argument that my text contained results of some original research and that Wikipedia were not a place in which to utter ideas containing such results. I observe that Gprince007 has further advanced in the same authoritarian track and is now demanding my exclusion from Wikipedia. This further adds to my suspicion that Gprince007 (note the "007" and then the "prince") suffers from the mental ailment of intolerance (very common, and even one of the active state policies, in the part of the world where I come from); his constant citing of Wikipedia rules, with their appropriate abbreviations, is further evidence that this individual may be a fundamentalist, in the broad sense of the word; in the real world, as opposed to the virtual world, such individuals normally beat up people for not conforming with what they perceive as the best thing for their fellow citizens. I rest my case here. --BF 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish to let u know that u suggested that i take this issue at BehnamFarid's talk page.....but since i was discussing this issue already on the talk page of the article in question, i didnt think it necessary to post the same thing on his talk page. Also, Behnam is a "experienced" user with over 3300 edits....so i dont think he can be classified as a newbie.....Despite this, i tried to make him see reason by explaining wikipedia policies on the talk page. Still this user doesnt seem to get the point. As is evident from discussion threads on the talk page of the article, me and other users have tried explaining wikipedia policies to him. After everything else failed, i posted a warning message on his talk page, which he deleted (see here). Now he has posted a message above, stating that I "suffer from the mental ailment of intolerance" & that I "might be a fundamentalist". This i believe borders on personal attack and is completely contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The reason why i am concerned is because, Abbas Kiarostami is a FA and such copyright violations need to be kept away from FA becos Featured Articles are "best of wikipedia" and it needs to be kept clean. Gprince007 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your message to User:BehnamFarid

Might I suggest that you consider your audience when leaving messages like this? Putting "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the talk page of a user who's been here since 2006 can be considered belittling and insulting. I'm not saying that the rest of the message wasn't correct, but when you're using Twinkle it's all too tempting to click the "ownership level 1" message without considering what it says. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I chose level one because it seems to be appropriate for a first warning of such things, but I should have then removed it. Thanks for the pointer. MECU≈talk 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice discussion

Hello, MECU/Archive/2008. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Repeated addition of copyright violation in Abbas Kiarostami article. The discussion can be found under the topic [[: Repeated addition of copyright violation in Abbas Kiarostami article]]. --Gprince007 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On attacking

I did not attack any one! I only responded to the charges falsely laid at my door. Also, please do not send me threatening messages; if you think that I must be blocked, then just block. What do you expect me to do when the person at issue is lying all through her/his text? Please read the talk page of Kiarostami's entry; until yesterday 9 O'clock not a single person had supported the actions of User:Gprince007, and yet this person shamelessly says that I reverted her/his changes against the will of all the rest. S/he keeps telling that the material at issue were on YouTube in violation of copyright laws, yet s/he fails to give a single evidence in support of this assertion; the only thing that we now know is that the whole thing is based on some feelings on this person's part. Oh, please kindly do not send me yet another message in response to this. --BF 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NBS Image

I created the NBS image Image:NBS_120_Set.jpg and provided all source information, which is listed with the image. Please explain your concern with source. John (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the image from an NBS Circular 120, and cleaned it up with Photoshop. John (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:MECU/Image FAQ #2. MECU≈talk 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you were talking about this. I did not delete the image. Apparently the deleting admin agreed with me. Please contact them to request undeletion (the first step is to contact the deleting admin). If you can be proven, then prove it with information, not statements that "it can be proven". MECU≈talk 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to contact anyone about restoring this image. I respectfully ask you to please be more careful, I understand you mean well, but you are not being careful enough and you are doing more harm than good. John (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the Barnstar eaten by a bear. I'm amazed that people waste time vandalizing Wikipedia. The only thing worse than a vandal is an ignorant one and that poor fellow is clueless. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check...

I'm not sure about the source I've found for Image:F16 Idaho airshow.jpg. Would you check it? --Damiens.rf 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Although the image here is larger and has a 4:3 instead of 3:4 orientation, it is essentially the same image and the website states the same author, so it's fine. Thanks for fixing the problem. MECU≈talk 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of Knight

Hi, please feel free to delete this image (I don't know how).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Wfgh66

I was only experimenting with uploading images. I cannot trace the website where the image was taken from (it may not exist anymore). Wfgh66 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Image deletion

I am the uploader of the hubble pictures. What do I put for the author, description, and the other information?Mattkenn3 (talk to me, I'm confused) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You should provide a link to the website you found them on showing the image. These images also probably exist on Commons already as higher resolution images. Did you try looking there? If you do find the images there, we can delete the ones here. Also, these images aren't being used. If they're no longer needed here, we can just delete them anyways. Thanks for your help and understanding. My Image FAQ may be of more help as well. MECU≈talk 12:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks For The Heads Up

I personally do not know who created the image, but it came from several of my friends who went to NIU and posted it on their Myspace. As it is not in any article, and I don't have a source for it, delete it. Thanks. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

image deletion

Its stated in the image description for Image:Hamon_Jean-Louis-Old_China_Shop_(Pompeii).jpg that the picture is in the public domain according to US law because its a representation of a work of art over 100 years old. I'm not sure why it was marked for deletion. Thanks. Brianshapiro —Preceding comment was added at 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You always need to provide a source for every image you upload. Did you get this from a website? If so, give a URL to the image. Otherwise, explain how this image came to existence. My Image FAQ may be of more help as well. MECU≈talk 12:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning / deletion Image:Boer_Legation_VA0949.jpg

Information amended; please remove warning as image is PD! See added and edited info:

  • For some reason source description did not copy. I restored this. Image is solidly in the '70 years or less' public domain of the three PD-tags used (they complement each other!). The image was produced in 1900 in the Netherlands. Note on reusage was misconstrued or phrased inaccurately: keeper of the image (Provincial Archives of the Free State, South Africa) just appreciates full recognition of custodianship in reusage and notification through address given. Hope this suffices; please remove tag. Michel Doortmont Michel Doortmont (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Author?

What do I put for the author?Mattkenn3 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who made the image? Hubble Space Telescope did! So put that. Or put NASA or something like that. MECU≈talk 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I will definitely help with Image Cleanup Month...thanks for the heads-up! By the way, I am putting together a proposal to deprecate {{PD-Russia}} in favor of other templates, given the news on Commons regarding Russian public domain...sure to be controversial!

By the way, I tried to fix User:MECU/OTRSAccess so that users who put it on their userpage would be included in Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers (which I created when cleaning up various OTRS templates). However, it seems not to be working and I can't figure out where I screwed it up! Sorry! Kelly hi! 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges" 
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated 
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Military Insignia}}

Just a heads-up since you seem to keep track of these things - the category is finally almost cleaned up. I fixed everything I could, and the last few items with the template that I couldn't fix have been listed for deletion. Once they're dealt with in a few days, should the license tag and associated category be listed for deletion? Kelly hi! 01:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...that was the good news, the bad news is that the deprecation of {{PD-Russia}} had added ~1000 images to Category:PD tag needs updating. Slogging my way though them, but a lot are complex, involving different laws that have sometimes re-copyrighted PD images in Russia while they remained PD in the U.S. due to the Uruguay Round. Fun, fun. This is going to suck because a lot less people bother with foreign copyright law than U.S. law. Kelly hi! 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi, did you delete my images of various football players of Liverpool FC? The images were not copyrighted, and so I presumed they were legal to use. Was this not the case?

Sparrowgoose (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you provide me with specific image names, I can't provide exact information. But I probably did. Just because as website doesn't state the image is copyrighted, doesn't mean the image isn't copyrighted. In fact, the presumption is that all images/artworks are copyrighted and "All rights reserved" unless there is a statement to the opposite. "Assuming they are free to use" is never a good idea. Just because you don't pay for something, doesn't mean it's free. You may want to read my Image FAQ for more information in general about images. If you have questions, please ask before uploading. Thanks for understanding. MECU≈talk 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Boyce McDaniel

The image information I provided when I uploaded the image included the website URL under the "location" parameter. The image was taken by an unidentifed US Government employee for McDaniel's Government ID badge in the 1940s. It is not copyrightable. Because it was a top secret project, I doubt that we can ever determine who took the ID phots. I have uploaded other ID badges for other Los Alamos scientists to their articles, and you are the only person who has a concern about this. Racepacket (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That "Location=" thing has caused me more problems. Fortunately I fixed the problem and made the hidden field display on the pages so we can see such information. It looks fine to me now. Sorry for the hassle. MECU≈talk 13:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Montserrat_virgin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Montserrat_virgin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, MECU. You have new messages at Rettetast's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Still?

Are the hubble pics still up for deletion?Mattkenn3 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mike_Shula_-_Alabama.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike_Shula_-_Alabama.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Help...?

I know this sounds rather...I don't know, strange, but I'm having a hard time trying to create a subpage to put what's on my Talk page on. And I don't want to end up doing something I'll regret...And I get confused sometimes...So, can you please help me, redirect me to the page, maybe? There are so many pages that I can create, but they end up not having a created user page... Jadell-Leigh (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! It worked!!! *hug* X3 Jadell-Leigh (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ECUPiratesFBCoach

Template:ECUPiratesFBCoach has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. PGPirate 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested 
Global login, blocking features developed WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology" 
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes WikiProject Report: The Simpsons 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Laser_Curtain.gif

http://www.phillips-safety.com/Laser-Curtains/Index.htm Mahdig (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a copyright violation. See at the bottom where it says "All Graphics/Content Copyright © 2006-2008 Phillips-Safety.com. Developed by SML Design"? That means it's not free and we can't use it. Please provide souring information when you upload the image. If you have questions about what is free, please ask me or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before uploading. Thank you. MECU≈talk 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image sourcing and PD images

Started this thread, which may be of interest, as it involves image sourcing and PD images. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MECU/Archive/2008/April&oldid=1136167498"