User talk:SCEhardt/A5

Photos of El Salvador

About the copyrigth of the photos of El Salavador. I have asked to the webmaster of the page where I took them for introducing them in the wikipedia. I don´t Know if the template now is the rigth one. Sergio.solar 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sergio - Thanks for getting back to me about this! In order for images to be used on Wikipedia, the image's author must release the image under a 'free' license such as {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by}}, or release all rights (public domain). Simply allowing use on Wikipedia is not enough. Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission has more information on this topic. The template {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} that you have placed on Image:Salinitas beach.jpg means that the image may be used by anyone for any purpose (use is not restricted to Wikipedia). Is that what the author gave permission for? -SCEhardT 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My uploaded images

How do I add the Copyright info to the image? I can do it easily if I know where to go to do it. thanks

--Morriss 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to the image page (such as Image:PeterBlair tie print.jpg) and click the "edit this page" tab. Thanks! -SCEhardT 09:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AWB

User_talk:Jpbrenna#AWB

Discussion section links

You are the second person in a week to complain that the links don't work correctly; howver, they work fine for me and I also use Firefox/1.5.0.4. Since I can't replicate the problem, I don't know how to fix it. If you have any suggestions, please let me know! --Jpbrenna 18:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... The problem seems to be due to an [edit] link appearing on your Archives box. This link actually goes to the first discussion section, and as such the edit link on the last topic opens a new (blank) section. This problem occurs in both FireFox and IE 6 for me. I think this is related to the code in your archives box. After looking at it for a while, I really can't claim to understand what is going on, but here's some screenshots so you can see how it is behaving for me (and I guess some other people). When I first visit your talk page, it looks like this. If I click on anything, it jumps to the right (but only in FireFox). Looking at the archive template, it has an edit button but I can't see a reason in the code, and it goes away in preview mode even though I didn't edit the code. Hope this helps! -SCEhardT 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Logo

I don't understand why we can't put the school shield/logo/symbol on the template. It's not like I am using the template to augment my user page, I am using it on Cornell pages.--134.67.6.11 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, please re-read my response to your question on the template talk page:

Use of a copyrighted logo in this template is in direct violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Specifically, "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace... They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes)..." If you disagree with this policy, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use.

Community consensus is that copyrighted images are not allowed on templates. This would also violate the point stipulating that fair use images "must not serve a purely decorative purpose." If you are asking for a purely legal reason, I do not know. I see you have asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, which is the correct place to seek an answer. -SCEhardT 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Area code articles

“ Paul - First off, thanks for apparently singlehandedly creating all the area code articles! I noticed that right now there is an article for Area codes 281, 713 & 832 as well as Area code 832, Area code 713, and Area code 281. It seems to me that the area codes that cover the same area should be kept combined in one article and the others should be changed to redirects. What do you think? - SCEhardt 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ”

Each one of the articles, 832, 713 and 281 are simply one-line transclusion macros for the article containing all three. The reason for this is so that the article for 832 can have a link [[Category:Area codes in the United States|832]] and 281 can have the same link for 281. This can't be done with a redirect page (or at least, I don't think so). Otherwise, what happens is in the "Area codes in the United States" category, you'd get a link for 281, 713 and 832 instead of one link for each area code. This is why it is done this way, or at least, why I did it this way. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops - didn't notice that the pages are transcluded... Seems to be the best way of doing it for now! -SCEhardT 13:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Qatar flag large.png

{{image source}} -SCEhardT 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who created the flag of quatar, but you should know all goverments flags are pd as per various international treaties etc. --Cat out 14:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought so but based on {{flagimage}} and the discussion at Template_talk:Flagimage#Copyright_redux it looks like the assumption of PD may be incorrect. However, it looks like almost all the flag images are now in this mystery status so it seems to make sense to just leave it alone until the issue is clarified/settled. Sorry for the bother! -SCEhardT 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. I probably renamed an exiting image. If there is a better one in commons you are welcome to delete it.

As per international treties (such as the geniva convention and several others) flags are required to be in the PD for at least the purpose of combattant identification.

Oh it wasnt a bother. BTW, please do not respond in archives in the future (I am not trying to be picky). I noticed your post only because of a coincidence. Use talk page instead :)

--Cat out 01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted image

Why did you delete the images I am working to upload to the Amity High School page? Was something wrong with them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.152.8 (talk • contribs).

Howdy - I deleted the image "Walkout.jpg" because the uploader did not say who took the photo or note the copyright status of the photo. These are two key facts that must be included with every image at Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Uploading images for more information. Are you User:Joec1986? Regardless, please make sure to sign in before editing Wikipedia. This makes it much easier to communicate. Thanks! -SCEhardT 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted text and spoken articles

G'day, SCEhardt. Pursuant to this discussion, I'd be most grateful if you could use your adminly powers to delete the following files:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/d/dd/20060707105102!Cyclone_Tracy.ogg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Homo_floresiensis.ogg

Cyclone Tracy is updated. I've decided to drop Homo floresiensis altogether. The article covers what seems to be a controversial subject within the scientific community, so it's not likely to remain stable, making it a poor choice for a spoken version. Also, I like to try to keep my spoken versions as true to the article source as possible, and as this article relies, in a number of places, on quotes from scientific journals, I feel that I'd have to remove more material from the spoken version than I'm comfortable with.

Thanks. -- Macropode 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! Should be all set now. -SCEhardT 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Strike me pink, that was quick! Thanks for your help. -- Macropode 12:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Queen Mary (ship).png

I keep getting these notices on public domain images I have uploaded. Public domain is pretty clear, and I don't see the need for the photographer's identity to be included forever into eternity, when it's plainly stated the image is public domain. When a tag 'expires' the copyright status doesn't change. This I am sure is an annoyance for others as well. Is there some way of not bugging me (and others) about details on public domain images I upload? I'm not going to give every image creator's name, I just am not. In some cases they value their privacy and in others there is no need to associate, say for instance, a famous person who desires to not have his name associated with 'being a contributor' to wikipedia with the image. Is there some committee doing these? If it's just you, and you find another PD image you don't like the tag on, just delete it, but please, I don't want to be pestered repeatedly about each image. Then again, if there's something I can do to help avoid the pestering in general, please let me know. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of wikipedia, and let me know if there's some way to help solve the issues I've addressed above.Pedant

Pedant - Thanks for the note. The requirements in place at Wikipedia state that every image must include a source and a copyright tag. Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Image use policy cover this in more detail. For an image you created yourself, simply state, "I created this image" and choose a license tag. {{PD-self}} and {{GFDL-self}} convey this, but {{cc-by}}, etc still need you to state that you created it. If somebody else has released the image into public domain, send a copy of the permission to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" (more info at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission). Then make a note on the image page that the permission has been sent and the author wishes to remain anonymous.

I realize this may be a pain, but it may help to understand the rationale behind it: Every day we receive a deluge of photos that have simply been copied from the Internet, scanned for magazines, etc that are tagged as public domain. Many people do not understand that creative works are copyrighted by default unless specifically released to the public domain, not the other way around. By requiring a source for every image, we are able to eliminate many of the images that are uploaded from varous sources by people who think that "available to the public" or "free of charge", etc, etc mean public domain.

A record of your uploaded images is here. Please check to make sure they are all tagged clearly. Thanks! -SCEhardT 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken in stating that all images require a source. I believe the policy was pretty clear before that page was rewritten, in stating that all fair use images require a source. Pretty sure nobody has actually decided that "all images" need to be sourced. I think people who upload images as public domain without their actually being in the public domain should be warned/suspended/banned as vandals. Is there some way to have one of these bots go back and change all my images with pd tags to one of the current tags? I hate having to do this twice because some committee decided to require a fresh tag on old images. I've already had images deleted for related stuff, but all the images I've uploaded are tagged appropriately, I'm sure. Sorry to pester you with repeated messages, Thanks for your help. Pedant 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no bother, but I think we're still not agreeing on some points. Your first edit was on 31 July 2004. At that time the image use policy stated, "Always note the image's copyright status on the image description page, using one of the image copyright tags, and giving additional information about the origin of the image." As far as the current policy requiring a source, I don't think it could be any clearer than the instructions at Special:Upload. The problem with your current images is not that the {{PD}} tag is depreciated. This can be updated to a current tag without bothering you if the image description has proper source information. Thus, a bot could not change the tags because the replacements to {{PD}} are more specific and must be chosen based on the image description.

Glancing though some of your images, they seem to be OK except for Image:AlbinoWhiteTailDeer.jpg. Simply circulating a photo by email is not sufficient grounds to claim it has been released to the public domain. Please either ask the author to formally state the image is in the public domain or list the image for deletion by adding {{db-author}}. Thanks! -SCEhardT 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for your assertion that an author publishing something with no copyright notice is not sufficient to place it in the public domain. Pedant 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights states that, "Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain." Since the subject interests me, I'm reading up on it and I'll let you know when I find a better explanation. -SCEhardT 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A search for "automatic copyright" brings up a page of copyright.gov that explains: "As originally enacted, the 1976 law prescribed that all visually perceptible published copies of a work, or published phonorecords of a sound recording, should bear a proper copyright notice. This applies to such works published before March 1, 1989. After March 1, 1989, notice of copyright on these works is optional." Thus, unless the email is from before March 1, 1989, a copyright notice is not required to prevent release to the public domain. On a personal note, I find this to be an inane law (along with the continual copyright extensions to prevent Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain). However, Wikipedia must obviously comply with the laws whether we agree with them or not. -SCEhardT 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually just 'research a law and figure that's it' ... thanks for the info. Pedant 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the current tag for speedy deleting an image for copyvio? Image:AlbinoWhiteTailDeer.jpg needs that, if what you told me about copyrights is true, which I'm assuming it is. Thanks for your help with my images.Pedant 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC) {{db-author}}, thanks Pedant 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Taken care of. -SCEhardT 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vestherpic.jpg

Licensing Conflict resolved. Please review link, I had to re-load the image into the system to resolve the licensing conflicts. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. -SCEhardT 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Case closed — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Street artist2.jpg

Howdy - I was looking at the source for this image and I noticed that the license is {{cc-by-nd}}, not the {{cc-by}} present on the Wikipedia page. Has the copyright on the source page changed since you uploaded the image? In that case I think it is fine to make a note of that on the image page and keep the image. If not, the image will probably need to be deleted since cc-by-nd is considered 'non-free' on Wikipedia. Thanks! -SCEhardT 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put the authorisation on the talk page of the image. JoJan 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy editing! -SCEhardT 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input

{{welcome}} The stance you have taken at Talk:Erection is not acceptable. Wikipedia works on consensus, not crusades. Please read the above links to better understand how Wikipedia operates. -SCEhardT 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern but my stance re: the page 'erection' is perfectly acceptable. Pages relating to sexuality and sexual function attract more than their fair share of juvenile idiots and easily offended puritans alike. The former damage the page and the latter destroy neutrality. Someone needs to take a firm position. My stance does not damage the information value of the article nor its neutrality. It merely ensures that the page can continue to be developed and improved without that particular argument clogging up progress. The page still contains relevant photos, just further down the page. I myself have encountered this kind of strong stance on other pages and been roundly criticised for objecting to it. If others can do it then so I think can I. You yourself forget the idiom of Ignore All Rules. Do not place a list of wikipedia's policies on my page again, I have a law degree and am more than capable of understanding and have a high level of knowledge of said rules. That is all. And do you see any hypocrisy in the fact that someone can place a message saying any change of a picture will be reverted within the page itself, whereas I get criticised for doing the very same thing in the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs).

Sorry, I forgot to sign it! AntonioBu 09:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image help...

Hi again, you seemed knowlegeful on image tags. see: Image:Mini Original 1959.jpg this image was donated with no retrictions, intended to be placed in public domain. The upload tag section says to use 'no rights reserved' in addition to the 'pd' tag, but the result seems to be that it's "copyrighted all rights released" and also "no copyright". I'm sure you see the problem there. What is the appropriate way to tag this image? Thanks a lot for your tireless work on images. Are you an admin yet? Want a nomination? Pedant 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - this is where things start to get really crazy! According to Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain, the American legal system does not recognize a person's ability to release a work to the public domain (because the possibility of completely releasing a copyright is not recognized). Thus the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag serves as a substitue where the image owner still technically holds the copyright but allows the image to be used by anyone for any purpose. The text in the {{PD-self}} tag, for example, allows for both situations.

Since the author of the image in question has waived all rights but did not specifically release the image to the public domain, the correct tag is {{NoRightsReserved}} (so just remove the {{PD-release}} tag).

Also, thanks for the offer of an admin nomination, but I'm already an admin. Nominated, oddly enough, on the basis of my image work :-) -SCEhardT 20:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Canine shitting

Are you really claiming you made this image yourself? Please keep in mind that falsifying image sources will get you banned from editing Wikipedia. -SCEhardT 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm sorry for that. It was just an attempt at humour and to lighten up an issue people were taking too seriously. No harm intended. AntonioBu 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:DogDefecating.jpg and your false claim of PD-self — I have deleted the image. We take copyright violation seriously at Wikipedia. If you falsify another copyright you will be blocked without further warning. Do not remove this warning from your talk page. -SCEhardT 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Threatening people is uncivil behaviour. You failed to respond to my assertion that it was an admittedly poor attempt at humour. It didn't damage the page or offend sensibilities or destroy anything. I tried to be polite and as an administrator I would expect you would do the same. A civili, 'OK but don't do it again would suffice' but of course you came in aggressively and threatened to block me. I have removed your aggressive comment, would you care to replace it with something more civil and a more reasonable response to the issue instead of, to use an analogy, cracking a walnut with a shotgun? AntonioBu 05:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No. You ripped someone else's work off the Internet, uploaded it to Wikipedia, and claimed you created it yourself. This is not within the realm of a joke. By blatantly violating copyrights you damage Wikipedia's credibility.

My previous message was not intended to be uncivil but rather to convey to you the seriousness of the issue at hand and remind you of the consequences of further violations. Because the message I left you is a warning, it is necessary that you leave it on your talk page or talk page archive. Since you removed the message after being warned not to do so, I have blocked you for 24 hours. -SCEhardT 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AntonioBu

This user has contacted the unblock list asking to be unblocked. Having read his talk page and your talk page, I believe that he should serve the 24 hour block. I am advising you of the situation. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I will reply to his recent concerns on his talk page -SCEhardT 10:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So now you're lying to your fellow administrators? You haven't addressed any of my concerns or apologised for your behaviour. AntonioBu 11:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit where I believe I addressed your concerns. If I was not clear about something, please ask for clarification of a specific point. I apologize if I came across in an uncivil fashion - I was only intending to be clear. Can we get back to making a great encyclopedia now? -SCEhardT 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to making a great encyclopaedia. You said you will address my concerns and you didn't so don't say that you were in fact referring to an earlier comment because if you were you would say 'I have addressed' not 'I will address.' Part of making a great encylopaedia is getting bullying, condescending admins like you removed. A project which I intend to pursue when I have more time. AntonioBu 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr.Executive

Please remove the stuff on the top of the page of the user page. You have no proof for these statements, and you just suspect him to be what you say. It is vandalism to add untrue statements. I will accept the allegations based on a result from the ArbCom check user, but until then, it needs to be removed, because there is no proof. Just get rid of it until Fred Bauer can confirm or deny the use of the account as a sockpuppet because it is wrong to just accuse someone of something when you have no proof whatsoever. Just be a good character, and act in good faith, and remove it for the time being. It is the right thing to do. :) --69.232.50.106 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just give it a rest. You are referring to yourself in the third person. User:Mr.Executive's edits make it patently obvious that he (you) is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:Ericsaindon2. Since you keep switching IP addresses I also don't doubt that the checkuser will not return any results. -SCEhardT 23:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been too busy for the past 24 hours to look at Wikipedia. I had no idea about Ericsaindon2's latest shenanigans until I logged on this evening. Thanks for staying on top of the situation and blocking his newest sockpuppet, Mr.Executive. --Coolcaesar 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! -SCEhardT 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:82.110.109.171

82.110.109.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) you recently blocked this vandal for a week. As soon as the block was up he was back blanking pages and inserting random nonsense and vandalism into pages. Not a single edit has been anything but. He hasn't edited in a few hours so not a candidate for the vandalism page, any admin will just say nothing recent and drop it. It might be worth another long block as it seems this IP only has one thing in mind for wikipedia. --Crossmr 06:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I have blocked the IP for 2 weeks. Feel free to let me know if the pattern continues after the block expires. -SCEhardT 07:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

King of Hearts image

Thanks for alerting me to this. I had a feeling that the image might in fact be copyrighted. Should I add the standard copyright image tag, or is there another one that would be more appropriate? And I made the image myself simply by scanning the playing card--would that be the source information that I would add? --CrazyLegsKC 00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the image qualifies for fair use, just use the tag {{Non-free fair use in}} and write an explanation. However, I think that there must be a freely licensed king of hearts card (although I haven't been able to find one with a quick search). If there is a freely licensed card image, we should not use this card except for specifically discussing the U.S. Playing Card Company. For the source just mention that you scanned it yourself and that the copyright is owned by the U.S. Playing Card Company. Thanks! -SCEhardT 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Audiparty

Sorry for adding all the links, I'm new at this. I just located the HISTORY button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.92.144 (talk • contribs)

No problem! Here's the welcome template which has some useful information to help you get to know Wikipedia better:

{{Welcome}} -SCEhardT 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Waste hierarchy.jpg

This picture is available through creative commons website and is flagged as free to adapt and use. Its origin is http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/WasteDisposal.htm. --Alex 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Waste hierarchy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -SCEhardT 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the source, but I still don't see a creative commons license. Could you point it out to me? Thanks! -SCEhardT 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:EttayapuramPowerLoom.jpg

Howdy - I assume you took this yourself. If so, please mention that or change the tag to {{GFDL-self}}. Thanks! -SCEhardT 15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I've changed the licence. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments on pages

What are the rules for deleting comments on article pages? Mrdthree 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All comments on article pages should be deleted, but I assume you meant article talk pages :-)

I don't know of a specific rule set, but generally anything that violates the first bullet point at Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable (personal attacks, threats, and personal details) as well as nonsense or advertising is deleted. -SCEhardT 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cheveretdeskfrontjpeg20040110.jpg

Hello, SCEhardt. I see you cropped Image:Cheveretdeskfrontjpeg20040110.jpg to get rid of the credits. However, it seems as though you may have accidentally uploaded the original image instead of the cropped one. It looks like the same image, except that the file size is bigger. —Bkell (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the note - should be fixed now. -SCEhardT 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Soccer-europe.com images

Alan - I noticed your comment at User talk:Soccer-europe.com that you have placed an image credit within the article such as at David Trézéguet. I think this goes against general practice at Wikipedia and I find it extremely undesirable as a form of advertising in articles. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images mentions that All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page.

Additionally, I don't think that Soccer-europe's image copyright requires the website to be credited in the article. Many images such as those licensed under {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by}} require attribution but that is reserved for the image page rather than in the article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. -SCEhardT 03:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it's obvious that I, like others, have problems properly understanding copyright law. I don't really see them as being user created images and soccer-europe admits that he did not create them. So as I now think of it how, if he didn't create them is he allowed to upload them anyway. Also I looked at only one of the images here and it didn't have the credit on it. It is now this and the credit is in there. If the images are covered by the "user created" then I would agree that that the image page is the only place that it needs to be, but in that case soccer-europe needs to be advised of that. I also agree that it is a form of advertising and perhaps all the "give the user credit" photos should not be used. I think that what Wikipedia really needs is one single person who can give a rulling on what copyright regulations are, otherwise what you have is every single user trying to interpret the laws. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I never got back to you about this. It looks like it has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#soccer-europe.com_images and now the images are listed for deletion. I agree it would be great if there was one person in charge of copyrights, but that would be a very busy person! :-) -SCEhardT 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that would seem to pretty much solve the problem of proper credit. That means we will all have to be on the look out for "his" images but as they only appear in soccer articles it won't be too hard. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Osterizer photo added, self-created, GFDL

Added beehive-style Osterizer Caltrop 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Just what we needed! -SCEhardT 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quchan

see User talk:Zandweb

ZANDWEB Quchan

Dear Sir

Your welcome message has scene of terror that is against every Iranian people and is pushing a point of view that point all Iranian people support terror and live with this scene.

zandweb 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. -SCEhardT 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

changes to plantain (banana-type)

{{nothanks}}

Thank you, I will take the opportunity as soon as I finish my other plantain research. I study wild foods and herbs, and am finding many websites are cross-referencing and confusing the banana plantain (a tree) with the herbaceous plant (plantago sp.). Even websites selling medicinal products and ideas.Maurygrimm 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! Here is some information that should be useful for your future Wikipedia contributions: {{welcome}} -SCEhardT 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Atlantic station aerial looking west.jpg

Hi - I have taggged this image as having no source because Image:Atlantic station.jpg has no source. Unfortunately if the source of the original image isn't found, your modification will also have to be deleted. -SCEhardT 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you have to do. I assumed the original uploader took it himself, as he submitted it under GDFL. I'd recommend asking the original uploader. Jkatzen 05:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He has been asked but has not responded yet. Oddly, he actually removed the GFDL license shortly after adding it. You might want to put Image:Atlantic station.jpg on your watchlist - if he puts up the proper source, feel free to remove my 'no source' notice from your modified copy. Thanks! -SCEhardT 05:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

reply to your welcome message (& Qs)

{{welcome}} -SCEhardT 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi SCEhardT, Thanks for getting in touch. I'm taking all your advice. Thanks! In my efforts to learn about Wiki culture, I have one question: I have my guesses, but can you tell me a little about why you contacted me, please? (Why you in particular contacted me in particular, and whether timing was pertinent) I have to say, after many years editing pages once in a while, with no effort spent learning Wikipedia culture, I became aware of the talk page, and so started an account. But I still haven't done a lot, nor do I know how much I'll do. I even forgot to sign in to my nice new account until after I did my biggest edits recently. I suppose there's no way to go into the history and amend the edit signature from just the IP address to my Wiki name, so it shows up in my list of contributions. Bike on! Unclepea 08:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclepea - There used to be a way to assign IP edits to accounts, but it doesn't seem to be active any more. (see Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit). I put the {{welcome}} message on your page because you edited an article on my watchlist and I noticed that your "Talk" link was showing up red, indicating that nobody had written anything on your talk page yet. I generally don't contact IP addresses when they edit because most Internet services cause their users' IP to change often (daily or more). Glad you're on board! We welcome contributions big or small, many or few. Ride on! -SCEhardT 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

how do you deal with Wikipedia bullies?

Hello,

I created the Audience response article and contributed a majority of the content. I also provided a useful external resource, www.audienceresponseinfo.com.

Another web master who creates and promotes multiple commercial ARS web sites continued to anonymously post commercial vendor sites to the external links section of the article (he doesn't even have an account, he just shows an IP address). You rightly removed his commercially-biased links several times, though he persistantly posted them again and again. Ultimately, in the spirit of sour grapes, he complained that my legitimate resource was a "made for Yahoo ads site" and should also be removed (by the way, I don't know him personally or understand why he would try to remove a valuable resource just because he can't spam wikipedia - He seems to have a "if-I-can't-have-it-no-one-can" mentality). I would like to request you to re-evaluate the resource I offered and return it to the external resources section. I know that if I add the link myself, this anonymous link spammer will just remove it again and try to add his own commercially-biased links.

Some items to consider:

• first, to clarify, Audience Response Info is not a "made for Yahoo ads" web site. A "made for Yahoo ads" web site would take you to a page which only had links to other ads. Audience Response Info is a content site which provides valuable information for people trying to learn more about the subject. There is no paid-for click arbitrage going on here. The site is not even remotely commercial. It takes a 3rd-party, non-commercial viewpoint and does not promote any brands. It only discusses the benefits and uses of aurdience response technology.
• CNN, BBC, Fox News and thousands of other conent sites across the Internet use sponsored ads - I'm sure you (or anyone else) would not consider them "made for Yahoo ads" web sites. Audience Response Info, likewise, is not a spam site. This person's assertion that the AudienceResponseInfo.com web site is spam is erroneous.
• Much of the content on the Audience Response Info web site is empirical research undertaken by University professors. How is this not relevant to wikipedia? AudienceResponseInfo.com has taken a lot of time to bring much of this research together into one centrally-located resource.
• All my contributions were made under my name in an effort to provide clarity and offer valuable resources to the wikipedia community. The other poster added commercial links under anonymity. He is the spammer. He is only trying to game the wikipedia system, rather than adding any valuable content.
• By bowing to his (or her) requests, you're allowing an anonymous link spammer to diminish the quality of this article by preventing a resource with a neutral point of view from being offered to readers.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loongtim (talk • contribs).

I agree that the website in question is useful, and I have added it back. Please remember however that I don't have any more authority over the article content than any other Wikipedia user. If the link is removed again we should take the issue to the discussion page to reach a consensus with other editors. -SCEhardT 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

-Thanks for your understanding. Hopefully it won't be necessary. -Loongtim 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Astrolabe_yemen.jpg

Hello I took a look at the terms and conditions of the web site that the image was obtained from, and it seems that all images from that web site are free to use under certain conditions:

May I put unaltered images or text from the Metropolitan Museum's website on my personal website? Yes, so long as the site takes in no advertisements and no sponsors, does not charge a fee for services, and does not offer any product or service for sale. The images must remain unaltered. All of the accompanying caption information must be included without alteration, and the citation should include the URL "www.metmuseum.org."

--Inahet 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that I made a mistake, I was reading the wrong Q&A. I guess this is the correct one:

May I put images or text from the Metropolitan Museum's website on a CD-ROM, public domain or otherwise? No.

--Inahet 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Inahet - Please realize, however, that those terms are not compatible with Wikipedia. They directly conflict with the tag you placed on the image that states "However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain." Images on Wikipedia must be available for commercial use (see {{noncommercial}}) and must be available for modification (creation of derivative works). Unfortunately, except where this image falls under fair use, it can't be used on Wikipedia. -SCEhardT 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note - I posted the above after having an edit conflict because I thought you might find it useful anyway. -SCEhardT 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

Hi, you recently removed a picture from my user page that was not situated inside the article namespace, saying that fair use images can only be used in the article namespace. I do not disagree with your actions, but I am just posting to clairfy what fair use images are and if whether or not there is a way for me to put an image outside of the article namespace (ex. if i upload my own image). Thanks alot --Jamesino 22:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly! You are welcome to put any image on your user page that is considered a free image on Wikipedia. These include images licensed as {{PD}}, {{GFDL}}, and any creative commons license that are allowed on Wikipedia. If you have an image you created yourself, you may upload it for use on your user page if you license it under one of the free licenses mentioned above. Hope this helps! -SCEhardT 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot. --Jamesino 00:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gypsies in Serbia.jpg

At your request, I have provided all the necessary information regarding the use of this image. Danny 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -SCEhardT 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#October_1

Larry - I'm not quite sure what you're asking Ozzmosis to do here. Is there a way to look up the permission email sent to wikimedia? This apparently applies to a lot of images if the permission was in fact properly given. Thanks -SCEhardT 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Letters from copyright holders that are sent to Wikimedia are usually posted on a Wikimedia Web page. Otherwise, it is not verifiable. I would like to see the permission e-mail and am asking for a link to it. -Nv8200p talk 14:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused about how this works. I'll use a personal example: On June 20th I forwarded permission for commons:Image:Washboarding with Jeep.jpg to permission@wikimedia. The only response I got was this edit (over a month later) adding a ticket number. Is the email I sent posted on a Wikimedia webpage? How would I find it? Or is the Commons system different than here at Wikipedia? Thanks! -SCEhardT 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought they were posted but I can't find them either. I always post my permission on the image talk page. Anyway I'll take it on good faith and strike my remark. -Nv8200p talk 00:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Request - Audacity

Dear SCEhardt,

Thanks for offering your help with recordings and technical advice under the Spoken Wikipedia guidelines page...

I do have a couple of questions having downloaded Audacity this afternoon...

Previously I've been used to using Adobe Audition, with good results, but have not been able to find a convertor that doesn't make a big mess of .wav to .ogg - but then again, with very little technical knowledge I may not have found the correct product...

So, I've resorted to Audacity to start recording, but in particular have found a problem with noise reduction: the very lowest setting delivers bubbles and a glassy note where there had been noise, but anything higher than this low setting gives a really distorted voice... This is all in Ogg Vorbis not Speex, but I don't know if this would make a difference...

Meanwhile, after experimenting, I've found that normalizing, then compressing, then reducing sound, seems to deliver the best results - but is that the correct order, or can I discard one of the first two steps perhaps?

Would be very grateful for any guidance, and will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance,

Patrick PS - I got your message re. licensing - and thank you, I've understood and will apply to future contributions... Patrick

Fair use rationale for Image:Lecmanagementteam.jpg

(automated notice by OrphanBot) 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of talk:Soccer-europe.com

I have nominated the page for speedy deletion under the criteria "It is a talk page of a page which does not exist (CSD G8).". Most of the links in the pages are no longer valid as they have been removed, the template discussed in the pages has also been removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccer-europe.com (talk • contribs).

Sorry, this does not apply to user talk pages. It needs to remain for reference purposes. -SCEhardT 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Soccer-europe.com 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Ok. In that case can I please get my username changed? I made a request 2 days ago.

I don't see why not, but I can't do it myself. I am an admin, and it takes a bureaucrat to do that (they have a higher access level). -SCEhardT 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Text to Speech Articles

In reference to your comment on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irene_Papas&action=history

Dude, that sure doesn't look like a "general consensus" to me-- unless there is further discussion elsewhere. On the Spoken Wikipedia Project mainpage there is even mention of a text to speech solution (under: Solution suggestions) w/o any indication that using it is unacceptable. Indeed, the sythesized voice article is much better and clearer than, for example, the vowel article. So what's the deal? Why do we have a Spoken Wikipedia Project anyway-- isn't it for the sight-impared? dq 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the project is specifically for the sight-impaired. Although they would certainly benefit from spoken articles, I would expect that they would also already have a speech synthesizer. Which program did you use to read the article? There may also be copyright issues with using the program's output. I did overstate somewhat in calling the no-synthesis issue a 'general consensus'. The issue has been brought up several times (1, 2, 3), but was not discussed as thoroughly as I thought. If you think that synthesized recordings should be included, I encourage you to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia and hopefully we can work out the logical reasons for/against. Thanks -SCEhardT 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure most sight-impared users would use their own TTS software on their own computer with their customized set-up. But there are many cases when they are not at their own computer (public libraries, internet cafes). As far as the software I used, there shouldn't be any licence issues. I used Festival engine with an MBROLA voice. Both are free to use for non-commerical purposes. (Wikipedia is considered to be non-commerial I think, although I could be wrong.) I'd be happy to discuss this on the Spoken Wikipedia talk page, I did expect a little opposition and also I do concede that a human voice is usually better than sythesised voice; however, the time taken to speak an article with appropriate quality is a major factor and with TTS I think we can expand the spoken article repository at a much faster rate. If there actually is a general consensus on limiting articles to human-only speech then I will yield. In the meantime, can we revert the Irene Papas article in include the spoken article so it can be reviewed by others during the dicussion on talk? Thanks. dq 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; it may seem counterintuitive, but the MBROLA project license ("Permission is granted to use this Program for non-commercial, non-military purposes...") goes against Wikipedia content policy (see {{noncommercial}}), Images/Media CSD section, part 3). I do agree that having synthesized article versions might be of some benefit, but I'm not currently convinced that the quality is worth the effort. Additionally, if they are added, I think they should have their own listing separate from the current spoken article project. Please let me know whether you agree the file should be deleted or if you would like me to list it for discussion at WP:PUI. Thanks -SCEhardT 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the MBROLA file can be deleted then. I re-did the article using the natively packaged voices that come with Festival-- there shouldn't be any licensing-issues with this voice. Do you want me to upload it so you and others can review it? That's a good idea about listing sythesized-spoken articles, I guess it can be discussed futher on the Spoken Wikipedia talk page. dq 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me - I'd say go ahead and upload the new file and seek feedback at the Spoken project; that should be a good place to find editors interested Wikipedia's audio aspects. (Note that most of the discussion occurs here not here) -SCEhardT 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox Theatre

Hay, it's a fabulous picture. I checked the usage of the image on the Dutch Wikipedia, and I will correct the usage. It is used to refer to 20th Century Fox, but since that's incorrect, I will need to fix it. Thanks for notifying me! – (empoor) 15:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with edit conflict

I was wondering if you could give me some guidance or intervention into my very first edit war, over (of all things) an unreferenced article tag.

Looking for an article to clean-up, I found Sleeping Dogz which really needed it. The article is about a band and appears to be based only on the band’s official website and the original editor’s (User:Cominoverdahill2) personal knowledge. I worked on it a bit but found that I could find no legitimate references on a google search. There are plenty of results but most are calendar listings with a few blogs. I found no legitimate article that contained any more content than a brief, press-release type description. After I finished my clean-up, someone else put a (well deserved) unreferenced tag on the article. Well, the original editor keeps removing it without providing a single reference. He has removed it a total of 5 times. I asked him not to on his user page after removal number 2. I even embedded in the article a plea not to remove the tag after removal number 3.

My options as I see them:

• Get over the whole thing because it’s a measly little article anyway.
• Just put the tag back each time he removes it.
• Start tagging his user page with vandalism warnings, starting with a level 2 warning and going up a level each time he removes it. (But would an admin block an editor over this type of vandalism?)
• Get an administrator (namely you) to warn him and see if that carries any more weight.

Any guidance? Cynrin 19:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what the best action is here. I don't think I would block someone for removing unreferenced tags unless it was a 3 revert rule violation and I don't like the idea of making idle threats. I'd follow the article for a while but I really don't have time right now... -SCEhardT 06:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoken version of your user page

This is terribly off-topic, but it gave me a laugh. Thanks. Sam 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it gave you a laugh :-) -SCEhardT 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with Image Rights

You helped me properly attribute and upload Image:Tina Dico promophoto.jpg, which has now come under some dispute. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter, as listed on the image's talk page.

Thanks!

Jenolen 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other regarding this image. We should be making every effort to have only free images, but on the other hand this image would probably be fairly difficult to replace. -SCEhardT 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I guess an administrator is needed to remove the "Replaceable Fair Use" template this image currently sporting. I think we've done plenty of dilligence on this image, and if you see fit, I would very much appreciate it if that template could be removed. (As the first image I ever contributed to Wikipedia -- and a fan of Tina's -- it holds a special place in my heart...) :) Regardless, I appreciate you taking a look; thanks again. Best, Jenolen 10:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to remove the tag - I think the admin going through Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 14 November 2006 should be the one to make the decision. -SCEhardT 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I honestly did not know that these tasks were assigned on an admin by admin basis; I thought any admin could remove that tag. It is an odd world, this wiki-world... But I'll get it figured out!  :) On another note, your page has gotten me really interested in the Spoken Word project. My only concern is the quality of my microphone -- it's very much the kind you usually find at the end of a long plastic stick, packed away with a computer keyboard. I was able to record a form of "podcast" for my family over the summer; as long as my recordings meet the 48 kbit/s, 44.1 kHz mono standard, how important is the microphone quality? Thanks again for the help... Jenolen 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize - certainly there are things here I still don't know myself :-) It wasn't so much an issue of my not being allowed to remove it; I just thought it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved third party to make the final decision.

Regarding the spoken article project, I don't think that microphone quality is a big issue. Cheaper microphones can require a bit more care in orientation to avoid popping sounds, etc. but generally turn out well. I'd suggest recording a sample, uploading it, and asking for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Happy recording! -SCEhardT 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So, given the direction fair use has gone -- where a very small group of admins and editors have decided that there is next-to-no fair use to be allowed for living people (there's some wacky list of exceptions that include "recluses" or "bands that have broken up", but in general, another admin told me "we're deleting all promotional photos of living people, deal with it," -- what are your thoughts? Is this the right direction for the project? I, obviously, don't think so .. but then again, I'm just an editor.  :) More importantly, I think the community, as a whole, doesn't agree with this direction, and I'm curious as to what you think would be the appropriate place to begin tipping the scale back in more sane fair use direction. (And, yes, every fair use image I uploaded over the past eight months has been deleted...thanks to some very determined editors who, it appears, became obsessed with my what I consider my quite unremarkable edit history.) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex topic and a debate I don't want to wade in to, but I will share my views here.

First, I think it is important to note that my personal views regarding similar issues on Wikipedia have changed fairly significantly over the time I've been here. At first I would have considered myself an 'inclusionist' (generally against deletion of factual material). However, my experience eventually showed me that inclusion of too many articles would lead to a multitude of poor, unreferenced articles (and advertisements pretending to be articles) rather than a smaller set of useful, well-written articles. I've also come to realize that having more articles makes the site extremely difficult to maintain in terms of links, lists, categories, see also sections, etc. - so a balance must be maintained.

I feel like something similar is happening with the images right now. I think that a move away from excessive use of fair use images, although somewhat of a painful process, will be helpful to the project overall. One of the primary goals of the project is to have free content and I think removing these images will help with that goal, especially since people will be more inclined to create a free image of a subject when a fancy fair use (professional) image isn't on the article page. Also, although I haven't seen the direct quote, apparently this change is a result of comments by Jimbo Wales. One of the foundation issues is that what Jimbo says goes and I think he's done a pretty good job thus far. I hope this makes some sense since it isn't even fully formulated in my own head yet :-) -SCEhardT 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is - I agree with most of what you say; but I get lost on the whole "Free (content) or nothing" as I think it leads to a demonstrably (sp?) poorer ENCYCLOPEDIA. To my way of thinking, there is no reason for the wholesale deletion of promotional photos; all people doing the majority of the deleting can do to defend it is parrot the whole "free content" meme ad naseum. But I feel they've completely missed the point -- these are the photos that people WANT to have used when discussing them. And they're never going to be totally "free."

A perfect example -- a series of state government types (Washington state lawmakers, the Governor of Michigan) have had their official, state photos deleted because they weren't "copyleft" enough. The person who posted an image of Washington state lawmaker went so far as to contact an official representative of the Washington State Legislature, who said, basically, "yeah, that's the photo to use. Use it." But because the photo wasn't released TOTALLY free, in all forms, forever, the deletistas said it had to go. (The whole sorry story, a real low point in Wikipedia affairs, is here). I mean, if we're going to go through the trouble to put up photos, and not be a text only encyclopedia, "free content" absolutists are going to have to make some acknowledgements to reality. And the reality is, in the U.S., celebs and the like NEVER release photos that are totally rights-free, in all forms, forever. Nor are the scores of Flikr-streamed, Creative Commons-licensed photos currently being touted as a "free" solution an adequate substitute, because they are licensed ONLY from the photographer -- what about the rights of the person being photographed? Being a celebrity doesn't mean you give up the right to privacy, as any state with personality rights laws proves. I think those rights are the best argument for KEEPING promophotos and their like, and fair using them. (Our fair use standards are already tougher than the law requires.) But hey... who knows? Maybe Wikipedia will get its Internet butt kicked by a site willing to actually fairly use photos...  :) After all, who had heard of YouTube two years ago?

Thanks for letting me share some thoughts; you have a good approach and are the kind of Wikipedian I strive to be.

Best wishes...

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts also. I must admit I don't know anything about personality rights - something I'll have to look into soon. -SCEhardT 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate

Hi - Regarding your change to this template (does -> may), I'm a bit confused. How could a spoken version of a given date reflect subsequent edits to the article's text? -SCEhardT 04:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

The difference is that the text implies that every spoken article WILL NOT reflect future edits. There are cases were the article does not suffer any major change, or even cases where the article is left alone for months, so I believe MAY is more correct than DOES, as the verb do implies something constant, where may, well means it may or not. Do you understand? I'm not very good at explaining things I'm afraid, so I hope you do.

I haven't checked yet; did you revert my edit?

Oh, and BTW if you have spare time, could you do a spoken version of the Vorbis article? It's been requested, but no one has got into it yet.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't revert the edit. I guess what I was saying is if the text has been edited then the spoken version does not reflect the changes. I don't really see how a spoken version could ever reflect subsequent edits (your point seems to be that the article may not have been edited, which is different). Basically I think using "does" will cause less confusion for people not familiar with the whole process (they won't be left wondering whether or not new changes are reflected in the spoken version.) However, it's not really a big deal so I'll leave it to you to decide whether to change it back or not :-)

I don't know when I'll have time to work on a spoken article, but I'll consider doing Vorbis when I get a chance. -SCEhardT 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the does has a negative conotation, where the user will think, "hey, this isn't the actual thing, it's not even worth listening to it", which is bad for all those volunteers of Spoken Project. If no one minds, I'd like to leave the may. Thank you for not reverting the edit. And thank you also, for considering doing Vorbis.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Well, I'm glad that you decided to tell me that my work was featured on CNET, and I shall now change the template to a simple Creative Commons one. I will work things out with CNET so I can get proper acknowledgement along with Wikimedia for the image.--Folksong 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work on improving images and ensuring their ability to be used on Wikipedia. Folksong 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Georgia Tech

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know that I've started WikiProject Georgia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Georgia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was aware...

Howdy - Please remember to check "what links here" when moving a page such as manhole since double redirects don't work. Thanks! -SCEhardT 03:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I had something come up in real life before I could get to those two. Thanks for the note, though.

Just curious, did you really think I didn't know to check double redirects? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading, that came out waaaaaaaay bitchier than I meant it. I guess I was trying to say be careful about warning well-established users that are obviously not trolls. There is probably a good reason that an action was or was not taken. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't mean for it to sound like a waring, just a reminder. I should have left out the part about double redirects, or maybe just not said anything at all :-) -SCEhardT 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the curtness last night. Something happened in real life that made double redirects and internet civility seem like peanuts in the grand scheme of things. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As a token to show my regret for being bitey, I will gladly proofread/copyedit any article anytime you need some fresh eyes. Just ask. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - It's been a while since I've done significant content work on an article but maybe this offer will be the motivation I need! -SCEhardT 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing vandalism that was done to my userpage. Jamesino 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! -SCEhardT 05:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A virtual pat on the back

...to you, SCEhardt, for your diligence in maintaining the Spoken project's RSS page. Thank you! -- Macropode 04:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (Now if I can just get around to recording another article...) -SCEhardT 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the edits of that admin shopper (69.165.222.229) from my talk page. I was going to do it but I felt it was borderline for me to do it...but not for an outsider such as yourself. :) Thank you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! Thanks for the feedback! -SCEhardT 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I don't think that an attempt to inrease traffic would entail contacting admins for consensus. 69.165.222.229

Sorry, perhaps this was simply due to a misunderstanding of typical Wikipedia proceedings. The two main reasons I reverted your edits are: 1)Admins (or other users) should not be contacted in this manner regarding a specific issue. If this was allowed, Wikipedia would grind to a halt as editors for or against an issue tried to contact everyone on Wikipedia who they felt would share their viewpoint. 2)Mass posting of external links, whether in articles or on talk pages, can be used as a means of increasing Internet search rankings and is thus not allowed. -SCEhardT 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SCEhardt,

I have been nothing but respectful with you, however I must say that I am slightly offended to be referred to as an “admin shopper,” accused of spamming, along with being the recipient of condescending, sarcastic, and muddled facetious speech.

Perhaps I made an error of poor judgment in requesting a general consensus from Wikipedians prior to editing an article because that seemed to be the most logical method at the time prior to making a submitting new content. I now know the there are more appropriate methods of achieving the same feedback.

I know for a fact that you would feel rather slighted to find yourself in my situations when your intentions were genuinely good. I do not appreciate the manner by which you and your fellow editors have responded to my situation. In fact, I believe that many of your contemporaries have violated your No Personal Attacks policy in itself.

Had I been an actual spammer, I would have reverted back all your edits to maintain the amount of listings of that “particular” external link, yet I have nothing to gain or lose by adding that “distinct” site to any article, thus dripped the issue.

I think you and you cronies should be less arrogant when dealing with newcomers in the future, especially should they make an honest mistake as I did.

69.165.222.229

I am sorry if you feel offended. Please consider creating an account and contributing to this project in a manner that does not involve external links. Thanks -SCEhardT 03:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Now why would User:Bradtcordeiro be free to remove his warnings for a mistake, yet such accomidations were not offered to me? 69.167.97.81

Do you understand that had you informed me from the start that there was a more appropriate method of seeking consensus other than requesting feedback from admins from the start, I would not have turned this situation into an ordeal? I am blowing this scenario out of proportion with the hope that in the future you will ask questions before you shoot. 69.167.97.81

User:Bradtcordeiro did not vandalize - he simply made a mistake. I did not 'shoot' you. As far as I can see, you were not even given a formal warning. I don't really think there is anything else to say on this topic. -SCEhardT 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from user

I noted you issued user 59.92.110.44 a final warning for vandalism. Unfortunately, this is still continuing. Any chance of blocking the IP address? Petkows 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)petkows

Looks like they self-reverted the latest vandalism so I'm not going to block for now. Hopefully they've come around to our side :-) (Also, for future instances, you'll get a quicker response at WP:AIV) Thanks -SCEhardT 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still learning the ropes here so good to know things like WP:AIV. Thanks once again. Petkows 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)petkows

Clemens Kalischer

You deleted my entry to Clemens Kalischer. I wrote he lived in Massachuetts. Why did you delete this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.43.31 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

You had been vandalizing other articles. Part of your edit was destructive (changing The Sun to sun) so I assumed the whole edit was vandalism. What is your source of information regarding his present location? -SCEhardT 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My source of information is that he is my grandfather.

Sorry, this is not sufficient. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Can you show in a published source that he lives there? -SCEhardT 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... so you dont belive me?

Did you read WP:V? Just read the 'policy in a nutshell' part. -SCEhardT 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:The boss icon.gif

"Howdy - Please note that having a similar image of a different file type is not a criteria for speedy deletion. In the future, just use {{subst:orfud}} and the image will be deleted in 7 days if it remains unused. Thanks!" -SCEhardT 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I've been trying to change a bunch of GIF images on Wikipedia to PNG because PNG is more efficent. Sometimes I also remove borders etc. on images. If you'd like to help me out, take a look at Category:Images which should be in PNG format. ---Remember the dot 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll continue marking images for speedy deletion when I replace them with an identical or very similar PNG version. In the case of Image:Dilbert boss.png, the new version is practically identical, making it a duplicate, not an orphan. I'm wondering what your thinking is as far as flagging for speedy deletion vs. flagging as an orphan image. ---Remember the dot 02:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely continue to mark identical copies for speedy deletion, but if you give me a good reason, I will start marking very similar images as orphans instead of candidates for speedy deletion. ---Remember the dot 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would appreciate if you don't tag images for speedy deletion that don't meet the requirements at WP:CSD. The requirement for identical copies states: "Any image that is a redundant copy, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia." This way if someone doesn't think the new version should be used, or there is a mistake, or etc., they have 7 days to dispute the change. Thanks -SCEhardT 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I did not see that phrase you bolded in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will make sure to follow the criteria for speedy deletion in the future. ---Remember the dot 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

photos

Hi. I saw a interesting photos what I liked a lot.They have some sort of feeling and they are yours .Can I use them as illustrative material for Estonian and Russian Wikipedia?--VanemTao 08:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide links to the specific photos you are asking about. Thanks! -SCEhardT 17:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Superb

Great leadership! 69.165.187.96 12:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Removal of {{coatofarms}}

Howdy - I noticed that your bot MartinBotIII is removing the coatofarms tag from images, leaving many of them with no copyright tag at all. For those images left with no copyright tag, it seems to me that your bot should also be adding {{nld}} and notifying the uploader. Otherwise someone else will have to go through and check all the images that your bot edited. Of course, there could be a very good reason for not doing this that I'm not aware of :-) -SCEhardT 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - that's a good idea, and one that I was wondering about when I closed the TfD. When the bot removes all the transclusions, I'll set it to go through its contribs and tag all those without a licence with {{nlt}} and see about contacting the users. Thanks, Martinp23 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, well it looks like OrphanBot is currently tagging coatofarms images with nld while leaving the coatofarms tag also. If you two could coordinate it would cut the overall number of edits in half. I'll let Carnildo know also. -SCEhardT 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind - I see you've already asked Carnildo about it :-) -SCEhardT 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe yep :). I've stopped the bot for now, in case OrphanBot is doing a run on them all. I'll probably restart it tomorrow morning and let it finish its 1300 ish edits. Thanks, Martinp23 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)