User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mahagaja. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Unicode Latin template

On the talk page in Template talk:Unicode Latin, the consensus was that the {{Unicode Latin}} template is not used in articles of letters anymore, and use a simple template {{Latin alphabet}} instead. --✉Hello World! 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for letters that are included in {{Latin alphabet}}. It doesn't make sense to use {{Latin alphabet}} in articles on letters not included in that template, and if we don't use {{Unicode Latin}} in the articles it lists, what's the point in having it at all? —An gr 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Unicode Latin}} is too large, and since it is used only in List of Latin letters I suggest that this template to be merged in that article.--✉Hello World! 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

wiki sucks

this place is really annoying, you can't uploading anything without getting told off for uploading one tiny image, how lame.

Testify. 144.126.208.61 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict titlepic.png

Hi Angr, Could you explain what the process leading to the deletion of Image:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict titlepic.png was? My understanding was that it was created with WP rules in mind to and only contained free images. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a collage of three images, of which only two were free. The third was "fair use", but the collage was being used decoratively, without critical commentary specifically on the fair-use part. Of the two free images, one was already being used independently in the article, so I replaced the collage with the remaining free image that was not otherwise being used. —An gr 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unicode Latin

Template:Unicode Latin 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. — ✉Hello World! 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish Translation

Hi there Angr. I hope you're the man to help me out. I've recently started a new article on a mountain of archaeological significance in County Antrim. The name of the hill is Tievebulliagh which I assume to be an anglicization of the Irish, Taebh Buailead. Now my Irish was never good, I know that taebh is hill side but I cannot find a translation for buailead. I have a text that suggests a translation of Tievebulliagh as hill of the dairy, but I don't trust it. Any chance you could shed some light on this. Thanks very much. The Boy that time forgot 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When was there a 'unified state' on the island of Ireland?

We are told that this (Primitive Irish) is/was spoken in the state of 'Ireland'???? Please explain.Eog1916 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Primitive Irish was spoken on the island of Ireland at a time before there was a unified state on the island. —Angr 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Angr, I'm still waiting for an answerto the question " When was there a unified state?" Eog1916 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Eog1916 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're as capable of reading History of Ireland as I am. —An gr 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick German-English translation request

I'm trying to rewrite Atheism, since most of the article was pretty bad, and I'm using the German Wikipedia's Excellent article as a basis. Can you translate this and either leave it on my talk page or at Talk:Atheism\reasons? Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-05 22:39Z

"Radikal-szientistischer Atheismus: Während für normal-szientistische Atheisten nur die Rede über Götter unsinnig ist, darf für deren radikale Vertreter nur das als existierend angenommen werden, was nach intersubjektiv überprüfbaren Verfahren wissenschaftlich beweisbar ist. Da dies für Götter und andere transzendentale Ideen nicht gelte, können sie nach dieser Überzeugung nicht existieren."

German Wikipedia

Hello, Angr. I caught this diff. Do you know where on German WP the policies in question are/have been discussed? (Only if you know offhand, otherwise I'll do the hunting myself some other time). Thanks in advance, thanks for your excellent contributions at the language desk too, and take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the policies have been discussed anywhere; I was just talking about my personal experience. I do know that German Wikipedia has no policy corresponding to WP:V, though. —An gr 05:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy Malcolm image deletion

Dear Mr Angr. I see you deleted the image of my father playing football for West Ham Image:Andy Malcolm WHU Football Player.jpg which took me an evening of work to figure out how to upload - so I'm very disheartened and slightly angry to see it removed. As a novice user it would have been more helpful for me if you had given some reasoning. Please can you advise how this image should be labelled. Thanks NailsworthNick 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It got deleted because when you uploaded it, you labeled it as a fair-use image of a living person, which automatically tags the image for deletion, because Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair-use images of living people in most circumstances (see counterexample 8 of the fair use policy). Do you know who the photographer is? If so, you could ask him to release the image under a free license such as the GFDL or one of the Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons Licenses. The important thing is that the photographer not gives permission to Wikipedia alone, but rather that he gives permission for anyone to reuse the image, including for commercial purposes and to make derivatives. Alternatively, since Andy Malcolm is your father, you could take a picture of him yourself and upload that, using one of the licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. —Angr 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The photo was taken between 1953 and 1962 and shows Andy playing football wearing a West Ham team strip - I was given the photo by him and have no idea who took it over 40 years ago. I do not think that a picture of Andy age 73 would do justice to the article really - I would prefer a picture showing him as a player - a piece of history - he was at the time a very well known figure particularly in East London. Any other possibilities ?NailsworthNick 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Angr. please can you advise how I should get this picture of my father instated to illustrate the article - thanks NailsworthNick 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 212.159.12.239 10:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you don't know who took the photograph, then you don't know who owns the copyright to it (copyright on photographs belongs to the photographer, not to the person the photograph is of), and without that information we can't use it. And at any rate, Wikipedia policy is very clear that fair-use images of living people are not allowed in most cases. —An gr 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible, however, that the photographer isn't going to complain about someone uploading a picture they (the photographer) took of their (the person uploading) dad 40 years ago.

There is also (if I remember correctly) the disregard all rules guideline. Wikipedia isn't an authoritarian encyclopaedia, so i doubt there will be any complaints in this case--topper 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Court

I noticed that you removed the image for the article on this person citing CSD I7. Considering the image was public domain and fully permitted for fair use by the publisher, as documented on their website and clearly noted in the images additional information, can you please explain your justification for I7 on the image in question. Prompt reply appreciated. thewinchester 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The image was not public domain; it was being used under a claim of fair use. To say something is in public domain means its copyright has expired, or its creator has explicitly waived the copyright. That was not the case with this image, which was tagged {{promophoto}}. Since Wikipedia's policy precludes fair-use images of living people in most cases, the image cannot be used here. —An gr 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tees speak

Tees speak (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Corrigan Image

Angr, this issue has come up before. Information has been provided to Wikimedia(dot)org by Brent Corrigan on two different occasions, once in 2006, and recently again in February of 2007 when another admin raised this issue. Corrigan has given permission for this picture to be used. I'm not certain who is responsible for tagging the picture once the information has been provided, but for some reason, this still hasn't been done. Jodyw1 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use images by permission, which is why {{permission}} says "this image will soon be deleted". Wikipedia uses images because they are freely licensed. If Brent Corrigan owns the copyright to the image (which he might not, copyright usually resides with photographers, not models), then he has to send an e-mail to permissions@wikimedia.org releasing it under the terms of the GFDL. —An gr 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Angr, the copyright is his, which is why, on two separate occasions once in 2006, again in 2007, he's emailed persmissions@wikimedia.org releasing rights to the photo under GDFL. Do you know why the "permissions" people haven't updated things accordingly?Jodyw1 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. —An gr 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8: confused!

Hello Angr. As my first thrilling admin task, I've decided to try to clean up the WP:CSD#I8 images. However, I'm coming across quite a few where the conditions don't seem to be met. For example, Image:NY-blank.png is tagged for deletion, but what's on Commons is Commons:Image:NY-blank.svg. Not the same image at all. Other examples include Image:HongKongfilm.jpg and Image:Sulla Glyptothek.jpg. There are a whole heap of those road signs, so I'd like to be clear before I start on those. As ever, thanks in advance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes sense. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Punctum delens and h

I thought that punctum delens was used with s and f only and that -h was used with other mutations, at least at some early point in Old Irish. -- Evertype·✆ 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was there a time when bh dh gh mh were used but fh sh weren't? Maybe so, but all I wanted to do was correct the impression so many Irish people have that using "C+h" is some newfangled 20th-century invention intended to replace the old punc séimhithe. If you have more details about the history of the two systems to add, that would be great! —An gr 04:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Class

Yes, because it won't be in Chaldean dialect alone. Chaldean 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparative method

Hey, Angr. Since you had written that fairly long and detailed critique of the Comparative method article when it was nominated to be a FA, I was wondering if when you had a moment you might take a look at it now and see what you think. A few months ago I think I dealt with most of the concerns you had, but the whole "writing style of the article in general" one is much trickier to address. I left a message on the article talk page a few weeks ago about possible ways to work on that, but I'd appreciate any feedback! Take care, --Miskwito 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglisch

Check it out!Cameron Nedland 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Long over due apology

I deeply apologize for any statement I said during the fair use debates that offended you because of your view on how unfree media should be treated on Wikipedia. I can now completely understand why you would act so strictly on enforcing the fair use policy, even to the point of suggesting that Wikipedia may be better off without any unfree media. I've recently had to deal with users who, basically, insist on doing it wrong and then yell at me for following certain procedures, such as marking unfree images only used to show what a living person looks like as replaceable. I don't remember the details too well or know if you remember them, but I know I felt anger towards you, and I cannot claim that I was at all justified in feeling that way. Although I may not agree with your view point entirely, I can definitely understand and respect it. Jay32183 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I don't remember being offended by anything you said, so it must not have been very bad! :) —An gr 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Alphabet Effect

Have you ever heard of this phenomenon? I sort of questioned and criticized it at Talk:Alphabet#The Alphabet Effect, but I'm willing to revoke my comments if there is evidence that it's widely accepted. I trust your judgment, as you have a doctorate in the field, and this postulate appears to flirt with some ideas studied in Theoretical Linguistics. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in your two cents. I ended up getting rid of the section. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

While I understand you meant well when you shrunk Image:PGSM Cover.jpg... You kinda shrunk it TOO much. Also, Please alert Both the Unloader and any Wikiprojects that use it and check what size the image is being used at and if shrinking it will created pixilization. (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just stating a fact) --Lego3400: The Sage of Time 00:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui

Thanks for fixing the bad pagemoves there. Good job. Sorry if I was in your way. --PFHLai 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, no problem, you weren't. The two anons were, though. —An gr 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the talk page is still screwed up Talk:Cho Seung-hui Cho is the original but Talk:Cho Seung-hui has quite a few updates so it's a bit messy Nil Einne 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, I was trying to untangle it myself. I've fully move-protected the article for now. --Slowking Man 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Both look like they've been fixed now. Well done Nil Einne

English words of Yiddish origin

I wonder if you might be interested in the dispute going on at Talk:List of English words of Yiddish origin#German again. AJD 02:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

You expressed opinions on the reordering of Cho Seung-hui's name. Please vote in the straw poll on renaming him in Wikipedia here. --Dynaflow 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Emily J. Hilscher

I'm so sorry i think i messed up your merge on Emily J. Hilscher :( --Witchinghour 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's all sorted out now. I thought the page had been moved by cut-and-paste instead of the "move" function; but now I see that two different pages were created independently, and you merged them. Anyway, it's not a big deal anymore. —An gr 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried moving Emily Hilscher to Emily J. Hilscher using the "Move page" option but it gave an error saying article Emily J. Hilscher already exists (it had a redirect to the massacre page). So I copied the content manually, that's what happened. Thank you for your help :) --Witchinghour 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, what you should have done is go to WP:RM and request the move there. —An gr 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish language

Hello again Angr. Can you take a look at this article? User:Ndsg suspects it may be a bit unbalanced by the work of Turkish language aficionados, but I can't find much of a problem. I think I'm missing something. We'd appreciate your perspective on it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out some of Ndsg's specific complaints? All I'm seeing on the talk page is suggestions for improvement as it's currently a FAC. —An gr 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any language topic missing, or perhaps something that is overemphasized? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, here I am in person. I've listed a few specifics on Ikiroid's Talk page; but it may well be that my points are irrelevant at the FAC stage. I've tried to help with various suggestions on the Talk page, but I get the impression that they've fallen on deaf ears.

The article is good in many ways, but still needs some improvement. The problems all seem to flow from the lack of a proper PR. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree a peer review should have been held before taking it to FAC. I've stated some objections on the FAC page. —An gr 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles Bennison image

I have uploaded the image a second time without the fair-use rationale, and included the text of my permission to use it, from the source. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fredmarch 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Noel Edomnds

Please can you explain how the image is a replaceable fair use image the image has been there ages and nobody has raised a complaint about it.--Lucy-marie 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the documents linked to in the box at the top of my talk page. —An gr 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Christine Sutton image?

Hi, I was surprised to see that you deleted the image of Christine Sutton, for which I posted a fair-use rationale. Was that rationale inadequate in some way? Was there a discussion somewhere of its merits? I have read the three texts you cite above, but they don't seem to clarify this situation. Hoping to understand better how this all works and how I can avoid such difficulties in the future, Willow 09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As made clear in the documents linked to above, Wikimedia and Wikipedia policy is that only freely licensed (not "fair use") images of living people are acceptable in almost all circumstances. —An gr 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Images - Aliza Olmert

hi, i've recently noticed this image deletion: [1] and i didn't quite understand the reason - wold appreciate an quick explanation so that in the future similar images i upload would not be removed. p.s. i'm watching this page, so you can reply here. Jaakobou 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy excludes the use of non-free images of living people in almost all cases. Please read the pages linked to at the top of this page. —An gr 04:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mattheafytrivium.jpg

I looked at wikipedia's policies and I don't see why you deleted this image? Also; did you keep a backup of it before deleting it, because I really liked the picture anyway. Maurauth ^(...) 08:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy excludes the use of non-free images of living people in almost all cases. Please read the pages linked to at the top of this page. —An gr 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

rhoticity

I see that you've removed a substantial proportion of the article on the basis of the no original research rule. Will you consider using your knowledge of the topic to insert a few inline references in the remaining text? Tony 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Did the lay explanation at the top really count as original research? If you're intent on removing it, will you replace it with another paragraph to introduce the topic to non-and semi-experts? I think the original para should be reinstated until you've written a replacement. Tony 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The lay explanation at the top was redundant with what followed; the rest was OR. —An gr 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blumberg.gif

you have deleted the image which was used in hepatology. In future please inform your intention beforehand before you do so. thanks--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 10:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blumberg.gif was uploaded with the {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} tag on it, which automatically marks it for deletion. It is one of thousands of images with deletion tags on them; it would be impossible to warn people ahead of time for all of them. The tag that appears on the image description page is assumed to be sufficient warning. —An gr 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paul Banks guitar.JPG

You have deleted the above image despite the replaceable fair use tag being disputed and a fair use rationale being added as requested. The image is not replaceable as the band has now split up. This particular fair use rationale is actually given as example of an acceptable reason for using an image in this way. Please reinstate it. Jud 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The image was being used only in an article on the individual, not the band. A free image of him would do for that. —An gr 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is notable because he was in a band which no longer exists therefore a relevant free image can not be obtained.Jud 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image

Hi Angr, would you mind me restoring this: [2] - it had no rationale filled out after the autodelete tagging received on upload, but unlike 99% of other alleged fair use images this one would actually qualify, I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image and "replaceable"..?

Hi mate. Could you explain what is meant by "I7 (replaceable fair use)" for the image File:Patsy kensit LWII.jpg? As I recall, it was a screenshot of a movie the actress appeared in, which I might have edited also. Cheers. --Mal 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - nevermind that.. I just read the blurb at the top of this page. OK - a few questions then. Firstly, is the onus not on you (the person who deleted the image) to prove that the image is replaceable? Secondly, given that your answer will undoubtedly be no, should there not have been fair warning to the creater and uploader (myself in both cases) so that they could properly justify it as per: "An editor uploading copyrighted material must provide a detailed "fair use" rationale, or the uploaded material will be deleted." Bear in mind that I uploaded this image quite some time ago, and this concensus or policy may be newer than the upload and creation date of the image. Cheers. --Mal 10:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of living people are by definition replaceable, unless the person is in prison or well known to be a recluse, or something like that. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use.) The "replaceable fair use" tag was added by User:Garion96, who indeed should have informed you that he had done so. (Many people assume that editors keep the images they upload on their watchlists and so skip that step.) Although the policy on the use of non-free images of living people has not changed in the time since you uploaded the picture, the policy is being enforced more strictly than it used to be. —An gr 11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to explain your understanding of policy to me. I have another question about this though.

Presumably, "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph" is what is being used here as a good enough reason to delete the image. Would it not be more helpful and useful to Wikipedia that a replacement free image is found before the image is deleted?

My rationale is that if it is assumed that such a readily available free image can be found, then it surely would cost the editor in question who is removing the original image, much time to upload a suitable free new replacement?

If such an image can't be found by the editor, then surely the original image falls into an acceptable 'fair use' category. Is that not the case?

Presumably the new strictness with regard to images is being enforced in order to protect Wikipedia and its foundation from possible legal action taken against it. I would personally question the logic of this as I feel its unlikely that a cropped, still picture of a reasonably well-known actress taken from a reasonably well-known film is going to attract anyone who would be particularly concerned as to any misuse - particularly considering the stated objectives of Wikipedia and the Foundation etc. --Mal 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To your first question, while it's great if a free image can be found before the non-free one is deleted, the policy is quite clear that that isn't necessary. Jimbo has gone on record saying it's better to have no image at all than a non-free image that could be replaced by a free one. Also, human nature being what it is, if an article already has a nice non-free image, people don't have much incentive to look for or make a free replacement for it. To your second point, the policy has more to do with the Foundation's goal of creating free content that can be reused by others than with fear of being sued. Most celebrities have official publicity photos that they release free of charge (gratis) to the press; Wikipedia would never in a million years be sued for using them, yet we choose not to because they aren't free to reuse for commercial purposes or free to make derivatives from (libre; see gratis vs. libre). —An gr 07:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions in full, and in plain English. Might I suggest that you keep this conversation 'stickied' up near the top of your talk page maybe?! On a not unrelated point, I personally feel that a WikiProject should be set up, that works in tandem with the work that you (and presumably several others) are doing with images - with the goal of seeking out replacement images as part of the process. I suspect it would improve Wikipedia greatly and, after all, there is no great rush, surely, to delete all the 'non-free' images. Just a thought. Cheers. --Mal 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet_forum.png

I would quite like to know why it was deleted. If I am correct that the picture you deleted was the same one I was looking at on Internet forum yesterday then I cannot personally understand why it was deleted. The screenshot of the forum was taken with permission, and the forum has no copyright attached to it. Therefore if there is any content on the picture that violates copyright its should be brought to the attention of the administrators of said forum instead of the picture being deleted. Could you kindly reply to this on my talk page. Any comments in regards to copyright infringements should be emailed to topperfalkon@gmail.com or cragster@gmail.com. Thank You --topper 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged as a replaceable fair use image. The person who tagged it wrote, "this could easily be replaced with a free version - it would take minimal time to write-up an HTML page that looks like a forum". Please keep in mind that everything creative is copyrighted unless it has been explicitly put in to the public domain (e.g. works of the U.S. federal government), and that Wikipedia does not use non-free content by permission. —An gr 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

When you are referring to copyrighted material are you referring to the actual coding of the forum or the content? Because the content of the forum is specifically open to use by anyone. All of the creative media available on the forum is available for anyone to use, should they wish... I suppose in other words I just want you to clarify what you mean--topper 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably both. The coding of the forum is copyrighted by its designer, and the content is copyrighted by the individual contributors. And "open for use by anyone" and "available for anyone to use" still doesn't mean "not subject to copyright". —An gr 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell that querying copyright law isn't exactly getting us anywhere.

Let's take this from a logical perspective...who exactly is going to complain about the picture?--topper 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if no one does, Wikipedia (and more generally, Wikimedia) policy is not to use nonfree material unless it is absolutely indispensable. If nonfree material can be replaced by free material, or if nonfree material is not absolutely essential to illustrate a point the article is making, it shouldn't be used, even if it legally could be. Wikipedia is about being a free encyclopedia, not about using as much copyrighted material as we can get away with and calling it all "fair use". —An gr 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand what free material in WP terms actually means, but in this case to make the point of the article a picture from a functional internet forum is absolutely essential to the article. The website that the forum belongs to doesn't restrict usage of its material in any ways, so I am unsure as to what the actual problem is. (sorry, forgot to sign)--topper 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I'm waiting for the reply I might as well re-establish which part of the image itself gave grounds for its removal, as I have just realised I don't actually know what part of the image I'm arguing (or debating, to be more polite) about--topper 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're not sure what is and isn't free for Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Non-free content. Also, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content might be a better place to find out the details of why a screenshot of an existing forum isn't free and how to go about making a free replacement for it. —An gr 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope...I think I'm going to need a little more help to understand why it is non-free content, and how it could be made such without changing the image--topper 17:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ficional characters and I7 RFU

Deletion log -- A fictional character certainly isn't replaceable, even if a Wikipedian took an image of the character onset it would /still/ be copyrighted. I thus request you make this easy and gracefully undelete. Matthew 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said at Image talk:Mitchelllost.JPG, a fictional character who looks identical to the actress who portrays her is adequately illustrated with a free image of the actress. If the actress had to wear heavy makeup (as is often the case in science fiction shows), it would be different. —An gr 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which only a minority supports -- frankly I believe you are admitting you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (WP:POINT) in your above message. A real world image can not depict a character as it is of a real world person, not a fictional character, barring the point that a real world image would be of an actor in non-character clothing (thus also misrepresentation), thus could be considered a BLP violation and a violation of personality rights. Matthew 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

John Wilderspin

Why was this page deleted? It had just finished having a discussion and the decision was for it to be kept! There were reviews on the page, and plenty of info showing that the subject was notable. Dewarw 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There was? I didn't see that. I just looked at the page and it looked like a vanity autobiography, so I deleted it. Can you point me to the discussion? —An gr 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: [3] Note that it is a "related page" (only listed because it mentioned Ian Venables' work too much). Please replace the page. We will then start to improve it even further- removing vanity if you think that it has any. Thank you for considering this, Dewarw 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, restored. —An gr 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

James Stacy

What is your rationale for deleting a mug shot of James Stacy? Do you have some incontrovertible evidence that mug shots are non-free images? If so, why didn't you provide it on the image talk page? Where is the link to a Wikipedia policy on mug shots on which you relied? Nicmart 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry mug shot states: "The purpose of the mug shot is to allow law enforcement to have a photographic record of all arrested individuals to allow for identification by victims and investigators. These photographs are usually considered eligible for republication under fair use doctrines, though the copyrights typically belong to the jurisdictions responsible for taking the photographs." What evidence do you have that the mug shot you deleted is an exception to Wikipedia's statement that mug shots "are usually considered eligible for republicatoin under fair use doctrines..."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicmart (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Well exactly. It is fair use, but Wikipedia policy excludes fair use images of living people. —An gr 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Germanic one-vowel-away nouns

Hi Angr, I asked Doric Loon about Dutch verbal-related nouns like bieden - het bod, schieten - het schot, dwingen - de dwang, zingen - de zang etc. I am no linguist but there seems to be a fair bit of regularity left from the old Ablaut system. I wondered if anything more specific could be said about it and he recommended I should contact you. If you please have a look at Doric's discussion page. nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf / wikibooks: Iarlagab 152.1.193.137 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that much about it either, but while I'd be reluctant to say ablaut is still productive in noun formation in Dutch (or any other Germanic language), it's clear it's not entirely dead either. Nouns tend to have o-grade or zero-grade from the Indo-European point of view, while present-tense verbs tend to have e-grade, but those are just tendencies. —An gr 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Productive? No hardly! I just find it a bit strange to click from the PIE on Ablaut that is mostly concerned with nouns to a germanic page that only concerns itself with verbs. It creates the (unexplained) impression that Germanic somehow shifted and limited the phenomenon to verbs only. That is a wrong impression I think. If there is still some regularlity left even today, that certainly must have held for anglo-saxon, AHD let alone Germanic itself. Iarlagab

A trivial thing...

Hello Angr, sorry to bother you about a trivial issue in an even more trivial article, but... You once made a small correction here about the use of a "sic" in a slighly unconventional metaphorical expression ([4]). This has now become the object of a dispute quite out of proportion to its significance (Talk:300 (film)#Stroking? and User talk:Arcayne#Non-English links). I have to admit it's probably just a matter of mutual stubbornness, but somehow I'm about to lose my mind. Can you please have a quick look and tell me whether I'm going insane or not? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Uggh. Having looked at the discussion on the talk page, I'm deciding discretion is the better part of valor and staying the hell away. —An gr 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah, probably a wise thing to do. Which still leaves me with the troubling question whether I'm being the madman or him. Should probably consult an oracle about it. Or a shrink. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image redlinks

Hi. You appear to have forgotten to remove red links in articles to images you have deleted. I trust you will go through your recent deletion log now and perform these corrections. - Mark 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. At some point after there is no longer a backlog of images waiting to be deleted I may go through and remove the red links to the images I've deleted. —An gr 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I would do it for you, but I don't really have time for any wiki work this week. - Mark 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Subway-surface route map

Hi there-

On the image page, I noted these terms, which were from the SEPTA site where I got the image:

Permission to use, copy and distribute documents and related graphics from this World Wide Web Server ("Server") is granted provided that (1) the copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear; (2) use of documents and related graphics available from this Server is for informational and non-commercial purposes only; (3) no documents or related graphics available from this Server are modified in any way, and; (4) no graphics available from this Server are used, copied or distributed separate from accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by SEPTA. The information and materials contained in this Worldwide Website -- and the terms and conditions of the access to and use of such information and materials -- are subject to change without notice.

I uploaded this nearly two years back when I was new to the ways of Wikipedia licensing, but it still strikes me that this is an OK set of terms for use on Wikipedia, though perhaps "fair use" isn't the right category for it? I believe I've seen a "copyrighted -- with permission" tag or something like that elsewhere. Anyway, while I'm sure a free version of this map could be created, I am not skilled enough to do so, and I do think it's important to have a map available on the page. --Jfruh (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, because Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, it does not allow images "for noncommercial use only" or "by permission" if that permission extends only to Wikipedia. Images used here have to be free for anyone to use, even for commercial purposes. —An gr 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you feel it needs to be, then feel free to remove the image. Like I said, I uploaded it nearly two years ago and probably wouldn't do the same thing now. I was actually following the lead of the other articles on Philly transit, which had already had the SEPTA maps added to them; I see now that someone has added free replacements, so hopefully they will step up on this article if the map is remvoed.

By the way, I see from your user page that you live in Berlin ... I'm lived there for a bit in 2002 (in western Kruezberg, near Mehringdamm) and have a great affection for the place. I'm a bit of a railfan (if you can't tell from this discussion revolving around the image in question) and I miss the S-Bahn and U-Bahn! --Jfruh (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ringworld1024x768.jpg

You posted a fair use message on my talk page about this image. Though this is a freely available image of the type you recomend, I listed it as a copyrighted image because of the subject matter is illustrates. The image illustrates Larry Niven's Ringworld -- he does hold the copyright for the novel. It is for that reason I list it as a copyrighted image. If my tagging is wrong, please advise me about the proper one to change it to. --Jason Palpatine 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, "freely available" isn't free enough. It has to be free content, i.e. anyone can make derivatives from it and use it for commercial purposes. And it should be possible for someone to make a drawing illustrating what Niven's Ringworld might look like from space without infringing his copyright. —An gr 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

grandpremiere1.jpg

Greetings, Angr,

Please be aware that said image received approval from the copyright owner's agent for fair use with credit. An email documenting approval was sent to permissions-en@wikipedia.org weeks ago. Also included in the email is the photog's contact information. If you would be so kind, reinstate the image and advise me on the proper tag for future reference. I was under the understanding that once copyright permission is granted, I was to alert the proper department and then announce it on my talk page. A bot would subsequently come around and tag the image properly. I followed protocol as duly directed.

37Celcius 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Angr,

Please advise whether the proper tagging for grandpremiere1.jpg is

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Fair_use {{Albert Ortega}})

Thanks. 37Celcius 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already re-uploaded the image. As long as Albert Ortega has sent an e-mail to Wikimedia's permissions department saying he releases all rights but wants to be attributed as author, the tag you have on it should be okay. I've tidied up the presentation a bit. —An gr 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche Image

Dear Angr---

Regarding the dual image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dzogchen_Khenpo_Choga_Rinpoche.jpg I am sorry to find that you have deleted it. I know you must have a lot of rules you are trying to follow to prevent problems. But I do not understand these rules.

There are two photos in this combo image image that you have deleted. One I took in 2003. The other was taken by an un-named, unfindable and completely un-agitated and un-concerned Tibetan monk about 20 years ago. Regarding the 2nd image, the photo was entrusted to me as a Buddhist student by the only person in the photo, the Tibetan Buddhist Lama Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche, for the purpose of spreading the Buddha Dharma. Not for any commercial purpose or intent, and not with any restriction about copying or duplicating.

For this reason, I hope you can do one of the following two things:

1. put the photo back online in the original position. 2. explain to me how you would like me to re-classify this image so that it does not cause any problems for your work.

Finally, although I appreciate your clear comments that your online name of Angr has nothing to do with the emotion of anger, and also in your photo you do not look angry, my personal opinion is that due to its association this nickname is not auspicious and that if you have the chance it would be good to change this name to something better. Anger is a terrible problem for people. I think it would be good if people would not be reminded of anger except in the context of reducing and eliminating anger.

Please do not worry that this change will disturb people or lose contacts. I will suggest the nickname of the opposite, Shantihla. Which is a combination Sanskrit-Tibetan name meaning god or deity of peace. This is based on the original name of the Indian Buddhist author Shantideva, whose name means the same thing. I thought you might like this combination because you are a linguistics person, and because it is highly unlikely that this name is taken in your online domain. I like this name because it represents the great name of Shantideva, and because it represents the transmission of the teaching of Buddhism from India to Tibet, an historical passage. In any case, this I think is better than Angr.

Please let me know.

Hi, I see your point about my username, but I'm far too well established on Wikipedia under this name to change it now! It just happens that my first name begins with the letters An and my last name with the letters Gr, so that's where the name comes from. As for the image, if you're certain that the photographers of both images are content to have other people use them--even to make derivative works from and even for commercial purposes--then it can be restored with a tag like {{no rights reserved}} or {{PD-release}}. But if they don't like the idea of the images being used commercially, then Wikipedia simply can't use them, because Wikipedia's philosophy of being a free content encyclopedia means that all our content must be reusable for commercial purposes. —An gr 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I can understand that your username of Angr is well established. But the horrible emotion of anger is even more well established in the world than your username, and although you may be good, anger is definitely not good. Please whatever happens do not take the name of anger to try to scare people into making space in the computer world, where many people have anger. If anger were the only method to accomplish broad change, then maybe this would be the only way, but I do not think this is right. Do you? Regarding your online name, I hope you can reconsider this or slowly change. But finally, what you decide is up to you. Since it is very light to change things in the computer world, maybe you can try it out somewhere else on an experimental basis.

Regarding your suggestion about the deleted image of the Tibetan Buddhist Lama Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Ripoche, please tell me how to make the change on Wikipedia from the present category to your suggested categories of no rights reserved or PD releas. Thank you for your help. {{no rights reserved}} or {{PD-release}} Best Regards, and love, Michael

Thank you for your help.

Although my name has nothing to do with anger, don't forget that even a seemingly negative emotion like anger can have positive consequences. Do you think slavery and racial segregation in the United States or apartheid in South Africa ever would have ended if people hadn't gotten angry? As to the image, ideally the Wikimedia Foundation would need to hear from the photographers themselves, but if that's really impossible, I suppose we can trust you to speak on their behalf. However, if you are in a position to take a picture of the Lama yourself, or if you know someone who is in a position to do so, that would be much better because then we could be sure the image was licensed freely. —An gr 08:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand, anger is the strong emotion that creates suffering, & compassion is the strong emotion that intends benefit and creates benefit. They are not the same. There is a very strong distinction, based on intention. So, please do not say that anger created benefit for slaves or for South Africa.

Compassion and love are the emotions that benefited the slaves of the US and the people of South Africa. If we do not undestand this distinction, then we will never know the difference between positive and negative intention.

Love, Michael

What you said regarding your rules was already ok, one of the two pictures i took myself, the the other was for the same intention and taken by someone whom you or any lawyers would never find or meet in this life, if he or she is still alive. The overall purpose is beyond contempt, or accusation or recrimination. It is for the purpose of the Dharma of benefit for all beings. So i think you or your organization should not object.

Love, Michael

Okay, I'll undelete the image now and then you can add the {{PD-release}} tag to it. Don't forget to log back in as User:Dbfusa to do so! —An gr 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Smart card

Everything OK, I re-inserted the tech description which got deleted in the tagging/de-tagging. Thanks for the vigilance! --Janke | Talk 09:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hugleikur.jpg

I noticed you removed this image. But I need to know what why the image couldn't stay. So tell me, what wasn't included that was required? TheBlazikenMaster 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You uploaded it with the "fair use image of a living person" tag, which automatically lists the image for deletion. Wikipedia policy is that images of living people have to be freely licensed in almost all cases. —An gr 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion under fair use

You have just deleted an image I had uploaded (Image:Critical Mass Brimstone Hostile, Chavez & Mayhem.jpg). The image was put up for deletion, but I put up a tag to dispute it. I have not heard back from anyone regarding my dispution tag, and therefore feel it was unfair for you to delete it. Please contact me so we can come to some sort of terms on this matter . Thank you. -YeLLeY511 19:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the pages linked to from the top of my talk page. Wikipedia does not use images by permission (since that permission does not extend to other, non-Wikipedia users), and policy is quite clear that images of living people must be freely licensed in almost all cases. —An gr 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the pages linked at the top of your talk page. I do realize the rules regarding images on Wikipedia, and had made sure to recieve complete permission from the copyright holder to put them onto Wikipedia. The page was tagged for deletion, but I disputed the tag due to the actual content of the image. The image showcases the four members of Critical Mass, and there is not another image readily available of the four of them, which is why I used the image in the first place. Please let me know what we can do to get keep this image. Thank you. -YeLLeY511 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did they give permission for the image to be used by anyone under the terms of the GFDL? —An gr 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They gave permission for use on Wikipedia, I am not sure as far as the GFDL goes, as I recieved this permission awhile ago. What would I need to do to keep this image? I really only used it as again, it is the only one I can find to show the four members. -YeLLeY511 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To keep this image, the copyright holder would have to agree for it to be licensed under the terms of the GFDL. See WP:ERP for suggestions on how to word the request. —An gr 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember using that page to request permission, which should mean that they agreed under the terms of the GFDL then, right? I emailed it to permissions before uploading the image. -YeLLeY511

Probably, yes. Do you still have a copy of their e-mail? —An gr 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I still have the copy of the email, and of the email I sent to permissions. -YeLLeY511 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should be able to tell whether they agreed to the terms of the GFDL. —An gr 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The exact wording was "I have no problem with you using any photo's or information on my site for your project. You have my formal permission to use whatever you need off of www.entrancetohell.com or www.theborderhounds.com . Thanks for asking first!" -YeLLeY511 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound like they really understood what the GFDL is about (they probably didn't bother to read it), but if you mentioned it in your e-mail, that's not your fault. I'll undelete the image and you can put the GFDL tag on it. —An gr 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, sorry about all the back-and-forth. -YeLLeY511 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)