User talk:Zscout370/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

"bye"?

Hi. What did you mean by "bye" in this log entry? Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

fyi

There have been some discussions of whether senior administrators should have suppressed the verifiable, neutrally written coverage of the kidnapping of David Rohde. As part of that discussion I brought up the Jeffrey Norwitz article. I hope I was careful enough to represent your position fairly.

You will see another contributor found Norwitz addressed the UN in February.

Do you still think the article should remain deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Invite to work on the SFK09

Hello We are working on creating a workgroup for wikimedia kosovo http://sfk2009.ning.com/group/wikimediakosova and have an event on august 29/30 in Prishtina. We would like to invite you to come. http://www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/index.php/sfk09/call-for-papers.html

Thanks,

mike Mdupont (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I am here now, so I don't have the funds to go to Kosovo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Brooks-Baxter War

Hi, I'm trying to get this article about Arkansas history reviewed for Good Article status and was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Thanks, --The_stuart (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't spend a lot of time on here now, so I kindly request you ask someone else that will know more about Arkansas to look at it. I do apologize about that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hungary flag adjustment for 1938 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships

I saw your comment for the Hungarian flag adjustment for the 1938 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships though the edit itself was changing the image of the Nazi Germany flag from image to file. Was this an entry error? Chris (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my mistake. What happened was that I was looking to do two things. The main goal was to swap the Hungarian flag images because someone fooled around on the Commons. Secondary, I was changing Image: to File: ONLY if I made a change of flag images. With that article, I pressed save and, turns out, the flag image was not switched (it had to be changed by template). This was an oversight, so you are welcome to change it back if you want. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

President of Belarus

The article President of Belarus, for which you seem to be primarily responsible, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WTOV-TV Image

I suggested the image be put in the "Digital Television" section, among other things, but all J Milburn wants is it deleted. Typical copyright paranoia. So, I did what he refused and put it there myself. The image is not in violation of NFCC, regardless of what Milburn says. He has no consensus for infobox images. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am personally telling how is how, in my view, the image could work for the article and will follow NFCC. The only thing I can suggest is to just a subsection about this channel and use the logo there. If the only mention of the subchannel is just a link in a box, I do not believe that will cut it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, it's interesting that you were so keen for the conversation to remain in one place before yet are happy to slope off to talk to someone else now. The non-free content criteria have consensus, and I wish you'd just accept that. I don't need to have some badge giving me explicit permission to remove certain images- I do not need a new "consensus" each time I see an image in violation of policy. J Milburn (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Subchannel Images/Pages

It has been brought to my attention that digital subchannels now have to have their own page and not have their logo in the parent station article. My understanding is if there is a logo for a subchannel, then it must have a separate page. However, unlike CW, FOX, and My TV subchannels, ones created for This TV and RTV may not have much info except a small template (as seen in CW, FOX, and My TV subchannels) that could be added and technical info. Strafidlo (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what I told NeutralHomer, but I am willing to work with you on the pages you are working on when it comes to images. I do not know much about the new subchannels and it started with the June digital conversion in the USA. However, I do know a lot about images and policy, so I will help you with that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like your "put the secondary image in a subsection" idea isn't sitting well with J Milburn. He continues to edit war on both WTOV-TV and now WGBC to remove images that have been moved to subsections. Now he is wanting a picture discribed in words....I have no response to that cause it is just silly. I need to know what to do here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew he didn't like my idea, but still wanted to try it. I am going to do a lot of running around today, so I will try and hopefully meet up with you in IRC later on today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:NFC#WTOV-TV_and_WGBC where further discussion appears to be ongoing. In my view, Zscout's approach is solidly in keeping with past decisions on NFC. Jheald (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn has taken this upon himself and is edit warring to keep them off the page. I have issued a 3RR warning. A block for Milburn may be needed because he keeps getting right up to 3RR and then stops. That is a violation in and of itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will not issue the blocks, that is certain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying you should and I am not saying he will....it just upsets me that he hides behind all the policies when it comes to images but when he wants one gone he will get to or go over 3RR to make it gone. It strikes me as hypocritical and just silly when one wants an image to be deleted even if it will be reuploaded later on and has no policy to back it up. Just plain silliness all around there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:RTV9 Retro Television.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RTV9 Retro Television.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WebChat Broadcasting System article

I saw that you deleted the article WebChat Broadcasting System for copyvio from document. The document was posted, as you noted, in January of 2009, but you stated "the article didn't come until months later". This is not true. The WebChat Broadcasting System article was created several years ago, and the page you cite the copyvio coming from was created from the Wikipedia article. As an admin you should be able (from what I understand) to still look at the article's history. If you check the state of the WebChat Broadcasting System Wikipedia article on or just before January 8, 2009 you should be able to discern that the Wikipedia article preceded the alleged copyvio document. The alleged copyvio document even has the '[citation needed]' tag from the Wikipedia article in it.

I realize the WebChat Broadcasting System was being discussed for deletion and was relisted to allow more time to reach a consensus, but removing the article for a copyvio that didn't exist is not right. What shall be done about this? Narthring (talk • contribs) 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Create it from scratch and start a new AFD about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So the appropriate thing to do would be for me to recreate the article from the last version before the deletion? Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done it already. Everything looks good now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Coquitlam flags

You've changed the flag for Coquitlam to an incorrect graphic (it's missing have of the wavy lines for some reason), but the you deleted the old (correct) flag for Coquitlam, which means I can't undo your edit because the old flag no longer exists. Please either fix up your new flag graphic, or replace the deleted one and revert your edit. Thank you. Greg Salter (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, hang on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I did some edits to it, but my eyes are closing. I will try and do more later, since I need to make a better flower, middle symbol and see what flor-de-lis we have. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Greg Salter (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Joining the project

I want to join the project and add articles about Belarus as a member of wikiproject belarus. I woudl like to start from IT industry in belarus and this in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Belarus How can I start any article and add to its discussion board that it 'belongs' to wikiproject Belarus members? Also I know that it's quite difficult to add an article about a company to wiki, but still this category exists and there are several articles there.Minsksky (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a page about the Wikiproject Belarus on here; just go to the page, add your name and just start writing. That is it. Even if you don't put your name there, you can still write about Belarusian IT companies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Irc - Foustanella

Sure, a rewording for sure was needed, but by the way the work is too old, I believe it belongs to museum itself. Suppose your contribution in Himara and Epirus (region) was asked by the same users from irc. Since there is an open disbute with these several times blocked disturbing users ([[1]], [[2]]), I kindly ask you to revert these additions.Alexikoua (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, everything is sticking. The main reason why I felt having Tenet in those articles is odd is that he was personally born in New York, along with his twin brother. I don't know where in Albania his father is from and the books I found only give the basic region for his mother. The other main reason I used the old book is to give me an idea on not only what is known and because it could be viewed for free, since it is in the public domain. But thanks for the response and I do hope to work with you further. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is simple (from my side), for example if I was born in America and my mother was is from, Belarus, am I not considered half Belarusian?. I'm one of these guys, right? Considered to my philosophy, even if Tened's father was from there, he is still half Greek (and half Himariot).

I know that some patriarchical societies consider as origin only the father's side, however I see wiki takes into account both sides (at least persons lived in modern age).

By the way briliand job with the 'fa' 's, just recalled my x-gf from Minsk.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Tenet, I focused on either side. I just wanted to prove something. As for the FA's, thanks very much. I like to write, but just ran out of ideas. I do a lot of work with national symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I discussed Zscout's edits with him on IRC. Collectively, we found no reason to include Tenet in Himare. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Phliber rib.png

File:Phliber rib.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Phliber rib.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Phliber rib.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Palladium Shopping Center

Hi, you deleted Palladium Shopping Center as a blatant copyvio of [3] but .. I am not seeing it. I've looked at both the original and latest revision, and cant find any substantial text comparable to the English or Czech in that PDF. Perhaps you can recall what it was that caused your concern? If not, I'd like to grab someone with a better grasp of Czech to review it, to be sure. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It was an English text that I saw, but I still see the "Fountain sculpture at the Riding Court" section to be a copy and paste. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that piece of text made it untouched until the end. The text is a quote from a staff member of the developer of the property (EPD). I think it would be OK to restore the article, attribute the quoted paragraph, and then copy-edit the article, except ....

.... the history section looks like it may have come from here; the website (Waymarking.com says nothing) dates back to at least 2005, but it appears to be user contributed, so who knows which came first.

Insert expletives here John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the subject is valid, but if you wish to have my opinion, I think we could start from scratch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed SVG file

Здравствуйте. File:Coat of arms of Belarus.svg - это не государственный герб Республики Беларусь. Посмотрите соответствующую статью, а также обсуждение этой статьи, в Российской Википедии. --Ліцьвін (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I taken your gif image and going to fix the SVG image soon. I already changed the flowers and gold colors, will need to change the globe later. However, the red and green used on the image are from the flag of Belarus. I need that Zakon from the National Archives to make sure I got this drawn correctly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that Zakon from the National Archives. There is a standard. There is a law: "О государственных символах Республики Беларусь", 5 июля 2004 г. № 301-З. I think that the image can be corrected, but you must leave and wrong, for the subsequent writing of fraud. It's abnormal when at the state level changes national symbols. I'm sorry, I don't speak English. --Ліцьвін (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Zakon: "О государственных символах Республики Беларусь." Read http://www.government.by/ru/rus_dayevents20090416.html User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png

Regarding this edit, please see this discussion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I also saw your note on the commons, I restored the image based on the DR you provided me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo Domenici

This article was semiprotected some 18 months ago while Wikipedia was under threat of a lawsuit. Please see talk:Leonardo Domenici for discussion of whether we should now unprotect. --TS 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Republic of Kosovo

I don't have personal objections to this move, but it will be like waving a red flag in front a bull to those with Serbian nationalist sentiments... AnonMoos (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

People were adding all sort of Serb and UN flags to the article, so I wanted to separate the three areas apart. The article on the anthem is Europe (Anthem of the Republic of Kosovo), so it is not like something new is being done. Flag of Kosovo is a disambig page, so it either shows the RoK flag, UN flag or Serb flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you need anything, I am just an email away. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

University Logos/userboxes

Just wondering if there's been any resolution of the university logo/userbox issue yet. BillTunell (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to restore these images: I believe them to clearly be PD-text.

File:ASUinterlock.gif

File:AzSt.gif

File:Akron.gif

Feel free to immediately renominate them for deletion if you feel I am in error at WP:FFD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the Arkon image was not my deletion, so that you will need to see another admin for it. The ASU interlock, with the sun pattern in the middle, I feel it is not PD simple. The A and S interlocking, I am on the fence with that one. There are interlocking logos like that we have on here, like the New York Yankees, but that specific logo is very old, like the Coke logo, and achieved public domain status due to age. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about the Akron image. I'll talk to the deleter about that one. Ummmm, perhaps I'm missing something, but you appear to be the deleter of that image. ???

You seem to have a fundamental misconception here. The NYY and Coke logos didn't achieve PD status because of their age, but because of their construction they were never eligible for copyright protection in the first place. The same goes for the Texas Tech logo (see above). However, I agree that it is a moot point in that it would fall under PD in either case and the logo is clearly PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The way I work is I first check images against standards that are very hard to wiggle around, in this case time. So if the image qualifies for PD due to age, I mark it as PD-age then move on to the next one. That is how I feel about the Coke and NYY logos; they qualify for time rather than anything else. I know simple designs are public domain, but I think what you think is simple and what I think is simple is completely different, as Hammersoft pointed out. I'll still look at the ASU logos, but I think if anyone will be restored, it will be the one with just the interlocking A and S. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are right about Arkon; there was a Tulane image that another person delete. My brain needs to wake up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about the same image, I think the one with the sun has valid reason to be deleted, but not the one with the interlocking letters. There are dozens of comparable PD logos (including the Texas Tech one) where letters overlap/interlock: in short, it's just text (letters whose fundamental function and purpose is to be letters) and therefore it is PD.

I agree that the image you mentioned is PD no matter what, but it makes it hard to show examples if they are not usable and we label them for the wrong reasons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Quadell's example (I learned a lot about image copyright from him) is a good one, about the Boeing image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Which example are we talking about? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arkon image when it was on PUI in February of this year. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that comment? I can't seem to find it. If it was so compelling, I'd like to see what he said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire discussion is at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_February_28#File:Akron.gif. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an update whenever there is resolution of the issue. Is there any outstanding discussion I can contribute to? I have extensive experience as an intellectual property lawyer. BillTunell (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem me and BQZ are having is exactly at what line can we draw for what a logo is considered simple or not. If you happen to know cases, other than the Skyy Vodka, that debated about what is simple and what is not, that would be of the most help. As for the userboxes, I would go ahead and add the logos back in that were mentioned to be free (but they could be removed again, but I promise you that no one is going to be punished/blocked/whatever for it). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow up with an e-mail to you. I have access to a treatise that categorizes all the reported cases. Reported cases are kind of the tip of the iceberg in trademark/copyright litigation, though, becuase a lot of stuff happens in the oppositon phases of adminsitrative registration applications. But the treatise will give you a number of interesting examples. BillTunell (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Email received and responded to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

James Corden

Just curious, re this users talk page, why did you choose to protect the page as opposed to changing their block so they couldn't edit it?--Jac16888^Talk 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, that option is available now? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

heh, yeah it has been for a long while now, its one of the checkboxes when you block someone. :)--Jac16888^Talk 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It also helps that, as of last week, I am not using the English interface of the English Wikipedia. (Unless someone else has a method of allowing me to use 平成 for years using a script hack or something). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Flag

My crack at it

This is to inform you that there will be a new law to be passed soon that will alter the Flag of the Philippines. --Exec8 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I heard personally from PH vexilologist Manual Quezon III (grandson of Pres. Quezon) about the law change. Ok, I want to know where can I see the bill for this law? I need to see what construction sheets were provided and/or the colors was going to be further decided. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He posted a link, via Twitter. Here it is. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I follow his Twitter and on facebook. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks, I have drawn an idea of what the flag might look like, but this should not be used until it becomes official. Later, I want a construction sheet so I can draw the flag accurately. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although I'd also want to see an actual proposed design coming from the honorable Sen. Gordon himself or, say, the National Historical Institute. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what I am waiting for too; I believe I still have a letter from the NHI showing how the sun for the current flag needs to be designed. I also have a sheet from MLQ3 that I need to look at. You can count me out of sleeping tonight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Logos again

In reference to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_September_27#File:CHCH_ONTV.svg, the image File:ASUinterlock.gif has been referenced, which you undeleted last week. Can I ask why it was suddenly decided that this logo was PD-text? Black Kite 19:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it was claimed that interlocking letters is no longer a special design and commonplace. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess, it was an editor that wanted to use the logo that claimed this? That logo is clearly not PD-text. Black Kite 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so either, but outnumbered and also Commons declared a lot of stuff PD and I have to abide by their stuff. . But I am still talking to IP lawyers and starting to get some kind of idea what is legal or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One day Commons will get a clue about this sort of thing. But then, it even takes ages to get obviously copyrighted stuff removed from there, so it's hardly surprising I suppose. Black Kite 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be a long time, to be honest. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Image primer

ZScout, I've created a copyright/trademark primer here. I'm opening it up for public comments in the hope we can put this, or something similar, on wikipedia as a policy in the future.

I'll try to see next week what I can find as far as public decision on interlocking-letter logos. Liek I said, this may take a while, but I haven't forgotten. Let me know if you have any comments about the primer. BillTunell (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Boeing 314 Clipper.jpg

File:Boeing 314 Clipper.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Boeing 314 Clipper.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Boeing 314 Clipper.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Mexico Chamber of Deputies backdrop.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mexico Chamber of Deputies backdrop.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Interlocking letter images

ZScout:

I've looked into the area of copyrightability of interlocking-letter college logos. Here's as much as I've found out:

There appear to be no unreported copyright tribunal decisions on interlocking-letter logos, or any decisions denying copyright to colleges or universities generally. There are no comprehensive public research tools on this, but I've spoken with counsel for the Collegiate Licensing Corporation, who is unaware of any such decisions. Almost certainly, that means there is no such precedent.

I've uncovered a few other public decisions of interest:

• Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1978). This denied copyright protection to an alphabet typeface font design (not a specific logo). The specific look of the font is not availabel in the public reporter, but whqtever the specific look of the font, the princople would be the same.
• Muller v. New York Arrows Soccer Team, Inc., 802 F.2d 989 (8th Cir. 1986). This denied copyright protection to the following soccer team logo. It stands for the proposition that a script verison of a team name is not copyrightable, although this logo was pretty simplisitc.
• Magic Marketing Inc. v. Mailing Services of Pittsburg, Inc., 634 F.Supp. 769 (W.D. Pa. 1986). This denied copyright to an envelope typeface design for a series of standard mailing-label phrases. the specific design in not contained in the public reprter version, though, and
• ETS-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). This denied copyright to the Skyy Vodka logo, which has a particular stylistic design unique to the copyright application, but is substantially similar to this.

All these cases involve interpretation of 37 C.F.R. §202.10(b) (although this section does not say much other than trademark rights do not automatically confer a copyright):

A claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter. While the Copyright Office will not investigate whether the matter has been or can be registered at the Patent and Trademark Office, it will register a properly filed copyright claim in a print or label that contains the requisite qualifications for copyright even though there is a trademark on it. However, registration of a claim to copyright does not give the claimant rights available by trademark registrations at the Patent and Trademark Office.

I've got antoher treatise section for you to look at if you're interested, but it basically contains the above information.

There is one Trademark Trial and Appeal Board case – University of Southern California v. The University of South Carolina, Opposition No. 91125615 (August 1, 2008) [not precedential] – that confirms interlocking logos are subject to trademark protection, but this does not involve copyright issues. A summary of the decision is located here. For wikipedia purposes I do not think this matters much, except for any South Carolina logo we might use in the future.

None of this decisively settles the issue of interlocking letter logos, but all of it is consistent with the position explained my primer here. I'd like to incorporate this primer material into the WP:Image use policy section to eliminate future confusion on userboxes and related issues. Let me know if you think that needs further input or comment.

Anyway, that's as much as I can find. If I locate anything else interesdting I'll let you know, but I think I've pretty much exhausted the research options available. BillTunell (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill, you are amazing. This will help us a lot when it comes to making logo decisions. From the administrative side of things, we tag a lot of images when it comes to trademark; however we do let users use trademarked images without any problems. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

pt.wiki request for AWB

Hi, I moved your request from your Village Pump to the rigth place. Best regards, Béria Lima ^Msg 11:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the "Star Spangled Banner" Photograph from?

I saw that you filmed one of two surviving copies of the original printing of the poem "The Star Spangled Banner" Is it yours personally or is it at a museum? Where was the document when you filmed it? 70.89.165.214 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it online, I just cannot remember where I actually found it at. It was over 3 years ago, so I really need to find it again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I found it, here. Another copy from the Smithsonian is at here. I might replace the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Gatineau

Hey there, I was wondering if you are willing to take a shot at creating a vector version of the Coat of Arms of Gatineau, and possible the Arms of Victoria, BC, under a fairuse rationale?? Image: Gatineau: File:Armoiries Gatineau.jpg Victoria: File:Victoria_BC_COA.png Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the images will be under fair use anyways, I would suggest to try and find a better images online. There has been many times that a vector image I did for fair use somehow became public domain or some other license on another project. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after a very long search for the Victoria Coat of Arms, I cannot find anything. Can you do vector it? It would be incredibly beneficial, I'd take a vector version any day, over a rough-edged, overscaled, blurry pic. Connormah (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that the Gatineau one is not fairuse, it is a PD image. Connormah (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I have the time to draw it. Have you tried the Wikipedia:Graphic lab? 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried, but I don't think anyone is willing there. The only one that really needs attention is the Victoria one. Void the Gatineau. Connormah (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a final decision on this? Connormah (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At this time, I will need to decline. I might take it up again later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyways. Are there any other people that you can recommend that may be able to take this up? Connormah (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can think of the moment, but there is a Graphic lab here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Sichuan Earthquake online hate speech controversy

Why is that I was not informed of deletion, prior, during or afterwards? Is it not WP:PROCESS to inform all parties so that each can provide their points, and move towards consensus? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

G10 is a speedy deletion, which requires no discussion with anyone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But how is it G10? I don't see how it is either an attack or unsourced. This is an incident that is highly notable and very big in China. It has even been mentioned by Xinhua News Agency and CCTV, China's largest mainstream media sources, not to mention a large following on the internet. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but it has a lot of information that attacked the girl and also many of the sources in the article is dead. Also, the AFD for the article said it was a BLP nightmare. The quake and even was a year ago, we must not shame the girl any further. Do not recreate this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no AfD for this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was not "shaming the girl"; it was a retell of the incident. Refer to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/23/content_8237906.htm for notability. As for Zhang Ya, the main problem argued there was that WP:BLP1E ("cover the person, not the event"); as a result, I have rewritten it in an entirely different form to represent the incident only in 2008 Sichuan Earthquake online hate speech controversy. The AfD for Zhang Ya by no means crosses over with 2008 Sichuan Earthquake online hate speech controversy, as the arguments, prodominantly WP:BLP do not apply, as it is not a WP:BIO. The page was not "recreated", it was reworded (if you actually read the body text, it is different to that of the earlier Zhang Ya article), limited to information which was WP:V, and had its title changed to something which was more suitable, non-WP:BIO, and thus is non-inflammatory in any way. I think you have misinterpreted the earlier AfD for Zhang Ya so that it applied to this article, when it clearly doesn't. And also, rather than deleting the redirect, have you ever considered that it could always be redirected to Internet vigilantism, as done earlier? I mean; how am I supposed to rescavange the Wiki code for the former article now that the history is gone, so that I could improve what is faulty (as I have attempted before), by finding more sources, POV-fixing, etc? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not responding? I have told you that the AfD you may possibly be referring to does not apply to this article. Your argument given above therefore does not entirely explain why you have speedied it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an AFD of this article, at the previous name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

at the previous name - exactly - therefore it does not apply. The previous article was a biography; this one is an article about an incident. The argument for the first AfD was that it failed WP:BLP1E. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

hi.. can you please go on #wikipedia?? thanks

Katherinem12 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Kat

I was told about you, making IRC contact now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request on Arwiki

Hi. please refer to my reply. We need a couple of days to ask the community's opinion about it, but I believe there will be no problem about it. will contact you again in a few days. best --Ciphers (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask where the vote can be held at, so if there is any questions or concerns, I can answer them? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. there was no objection regarding your request, and the your user name has been added to AWB users list. please check and let me know in case of any problem. My i ask you please to create you local user page on ARWP, and explain what you are doing of edits so users will not bother you with many questions. I will add a small translation later if you dont mind. best --Ciphers (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

help with AWB bug resolution

Hi, in this edit it appears that your edit got messed up due to an AWB bug. I'm one of the AWB developers looking at that bug. It would be helpful to us if you could tell us the exact version of AWB that you were running at the time of that edit (Help->About in AWB, the SVN number)? Thanks Rjwilmsi 14:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

4902 rev5528. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Canada

Please see and comment here. Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

CFAC rank insignia images

Hi! Regarding:

• (Deletion log); 12:37 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF8 CFAC LTGEN.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)
• (Deletion log); 12:36 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF9 CFAC GEN.gif" (F2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons)
• (Deletion log); 12:35 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF7 CFAC MAJGEN.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)
• (Deletion log); 12:34 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF6 CFAC BGEN.gif" (F7: Violates non-free use policy)
• (Deletion log); 12:34 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF5 CFAC COL.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)
• (Deletion log); 12:34 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF4 CFAC LTCOL.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)
• (Deletion log); 12:34 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF3 CFAC MAJ.gif" (F7: Violates non-free use policy)
• (Deletion log); 12:33 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF2 CFAC CPT.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)
• (Deletion log); 12:32 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF1b CFAC LT.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)
• (Deletion log); 12:32 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:OF1a CFAC SLT.gif" (F5: Unused non-free media)

I think I uploaded these images with the intention of using them in an article, but got distracted ... As you have deleted them and hence their histories, I am unable to determine the following information. Can you help please?

• Did I upload any of these? Which? When?
• The F5 need no discussion, however, I'm surprised by the two with F7, and the F2. Were they ones I uploaded? If so, what was wrong with the F7s?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Some you did, some were not. The problem is that all of these images were just used in galleries on just the general rank (General, Colonel) which had a ton of images already under acceptable licenses. Having a fair use one is not needed in those galleries. If you had an article which is just Canadian rank insignia, I can see the images going there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. So I gather you are implying that I should write the article(s) before uploading the image(s)?
At that time, is it easy for you to undelete them? (Because uploading them from scratch and creating the FURs requires time & effort.) Cheers, and thanks for the explanation. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW: Isn't it customary to give some sort of prior warning before deleting images? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards

		The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
		This WikiCup Award is presented to Zscout370 for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.

Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already! iMatthew ^talk at 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD

I'm wondering if you're going to report your results at the project page. LadyofShalott 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure when I will report the results of my personal test, but I will do so when asked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fustanella

Why did you delete the first image on fustanella?--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You got the wrong guy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar
		Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Craig Larner

Hi Zscout370. I have undone your G10 deletion of Craig Larner. While a fair number of the versions of this article were actual G10 material, the version you deleted seems to be fairly neutral. It may be deleted through the prod of course (no objection to that), but I don't beleiev that it qualified for G10. Could it be that you had looked at an older version accidentally when deciding to speedy it? Anyway, if I missed something and it really should be gone as a G10, feel free to redelete it, I won't object. Fram (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The version I saw and when I deleted, it had a lot of attacks on the guy (mostly about his sexuality and the quality of his band). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was a vandalised version, not the original or final one (and not actually the one you deleted, since the vandalism had been reverted by the time of your delete). Hmm, perhaps I should report this at WP:NEWT? (just kidding, I don't think any regular speedy deleter hasn't made this mistake). Fram (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main question I have is the offending vandalism still deleted or was it restored? As long as the vandalism is gone from the history, I will be glad. Anyways, about NEWT; if I can chide a user for speedying articles, I should be able to face the criticism that comes from it. Shoot, my sig says "Return Fire"; it is there for a reason. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored all versions. Just like when we have vandalism (BLP-vandalism) on an article, we revert it, and protect if necessary, but we don't do revision-deletions except for extreme cases. Fram (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Thanks

..are not available at this time for your efforts. Instead, here's a barnstar:

		The SVG Barnstar
		For your efforts in the NCAA logo realm. These kinds of improvements to the encyclopedia are welcome and appreciated. They should be recognized. — BQZip01 — talk 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• awww..thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop!

Check this edit! Due to AWB's bug you replaced the whole page with something else. Can you please report the version of AWB you are using asap? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

4.9.0.3, SVN 5646. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We are discussing the subject in IRC. Please suspend your work for some time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I finished before you messaged me. I am on IRC too now, if you want me to join. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Join irc://irc.freenode.net/autowikibrowser -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Image: --> File:?

It looks like you are doing a massive change of Image: to File: in many articles. Has the policy changed? I used Image: since I felt it was a bit more descriptive, and the guidelines use Image: in their examples. What is wrong with it? Thanks for any info. W Nowicki (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a Wikimedia namespace change earlier this year. I also used a typo fixer and also other changes in autowikibrowser, so it was not like it was the only edit I did. There is no policy against using Image, and if you want to revert me, that is cool, but the namespace changed to File:. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

An AWB Feauture Reuquest from automatically doind that was rejected recently. Maybe you could ask for a bot and an aproval from WP:BAG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing it through Find and Replace, a function that is already on AWB. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to do it as the software supports both. There are certainly much more productive things to do with your time since this is a basically pointless change. I'm not trying to be mean here, but I've seen you doing tons of these, so you must be spending a pretty good amount of time doing it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of the changes happen when I sleep, but I try and make other changes too when I can. But you can say I have a boring life. Delete images on the Commons in the afternoon, AWB during the wee hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point out to me where I ever stated that this had anything to do with policy. I've looked all over and I can find nothing which supports your allegation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is no reason to do it as the software supports both" is all I can find. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all I could find, too, and it clearly has nothing to do with policy. I was just concerned that—in essence—you're wasting your time making this specific change when the software already supports both (and people will likely continue using both, at least for a while). My comments were not meant as an attack or to be taken as derisive in any manner. Rather, I was just concerned that you were using your time (valuable time, I'm assuming, as most people value their time) doing something unnecessary. I hope that makes sense. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I been called worse, so it takes a lot to offend me or slight me. I was just mostly confused. However, I am glad your clarified the statement in the RFB and I left a note at the Crat Chat that I now support your candidacy for RFB. As for this wasting my time, I am using AWB to do this and I am listed on the bot page. So this means it can run in the background while I am on IRC or doing other things, like holding a real job and sleeping. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth it to see if a regular bot can do it. It's a pretty-straight-forward substitution, and a bot could even keep on top of it better, I think, with any new ones that come up. It's worth a thought, anyway. I appreciate the comment on the RfB crat chat page, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A bot was rejected before I decided to take a long wikibreak this year. I am doing it at small steps at a time, but it might also be added in AWB by default. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Boze Pravde

Unfortunately they never reply. Anyway they don't hold copyright on anthem so they can't release rights they don't hold, and it can't be deleted as the anthem is not copyrighted.--Avala (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The music and lyrics of the anthem are public domain due to age, but just not that specific recording (in my opinion). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects in File-namespace

Hi!

Will you have a look at these redirects?

• File:Coss2.jpg
• File:Edinburgh_lord_provosts.jpg
• File:Generic_iPod.png
• File:Generic_iPod_touch.png
• File:IPod_placeholder.svg
• File:Placeholder_book.svg
• File:Project_Trains_no_image.png
• File:URL
• File:User_Wynthyst_sig_icon.png
• File:User_mode.ry_sig.png
• File:Userpulsarconrbutton1.png
• File:Userpulsarconrbutton2.png
• File:Userpulsarconrbutton4.png

Are they needed? --MGA73 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not needed for the first one, the rest I will look at later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag of India

Is there some way you could merge the History section of Flag of India to List of Indian flags so that all our merge/GFDL requirements are satisfied? There are a lot of flags in this that belong in the list but aren't covered there, and I hate to just delete en masse. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just copy the text over and mention the article in the edit summary; that will satisfy the GFDL requirements. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

CoA of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (svg)

Hi there. Could you please help with your comment on Talk:Kingdom_of_Croatia-Slavonia#Flag_and_CoA. The problem is with this CoA and flag. Also, please see this. Thnx in advance--Ex13 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thnx a lot--Ex13 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Flag of the US Episcopal Church.svg

A file you uploaded and which is now on the commons, commons:File:Flag of the US Episcopal Church.svg, is similar to the non-free image File:TEC flag.PNG on the English Wikipedia. The status of both files is being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:TEC arms.PNG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation

There is the first one, the second one will come soon

The current flag of VN's description (http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/law/vi/1951_to_1960/1955/195511/195511300001)

QUỐC KỲ Hình cờ và mầu sắc: Cờ hình chữ nhất, nền mầu đỏ tươi, giữa có hình sao vàng năm cánh mầu vàng tươi. Trung tâm của sao đặt đúng trung tâm của cờ, một cánh sao quay thẳng lên phía trên. Kích thước: Chiều rộng của cờ bằng 2 phần 3 chiều dài. Từ trung tâm A của sao đến đầu một cánh B của sao gần bằng 1 phần 5 chiều dài của cờ.

Translation:

National Flag Figure and color: [The flag's] shape is rectangle, base color is bright red, and there is a bright yellow pentagram in the center. The center of the star is placed right in the center of the flag, and one of the angles of the pentagram face the upside [of the flag]. Size: Proportion of height and width [of the flag] is 2 to 3 The distance between a angle and the center of the pentagram is near one-fifth of the flag's width.

Sorry this is the first time I translate a government document, therefore the translation process is a bit slow.--AM ^(talk) 16:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cám ơn cô. The reason why I ask is that I draw flags (a lot of them in fact) and I have been trying to obtain official laws and papers on how to draw flags. Until a few days ago, I had no idea Vietnam had these documents online. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag of North Vietnam (http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/law/vi/1945_to_1950/1945/194509/194509050003)

*Kích thước: Nền cờ: bề dài = a, bề ngang = 2/3a Sao: Từ trung tâm đến hết I góc lồi = 1/5a Từ trung tâm đến I góc lõm = 1/10a (Có hình vẽ - Xem bản gốc) Mầu sắc: Nền mầu đỏ tươi Sao vàng tươi Cách đặt sao: Ngôi sao vàng có 5 góc lồi và 5 góc lõm, trung tâm sao đặt đúng trung tâm nền cờ, một góc lồi quay thẳng lên phía trên theo đường AB./.

Translation:

Size: Flag: Height=A Width=2⁄3A (there is a picture, look for the original version)* Star: The distance between the center and a vertex is valued 1⁄5A The distance between the center and a intersections of the edges is valued 1⁄10A Color: The color of the flag is bright red The color of the star is bright yellow How to place the star: The yellow star has five vertices and five intersections of the edges, its center is placed right in the center of the flag. One of vertices faces the upside of the flag "as the AB line".*

* I don't know what these "AB line" and "there is a picture, look for the original version" meant. I think that there was a sample flag attached with the original document but I couldn't found it in the online document. These translations is to be faithful in translating the Vietnamese text, so don't mind them.

I also did some revisions on the 1st translation, please take a look.--AM ^(talk) 11:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Simplicity of design

Do you have laws, case law, or commonly observed off-wiki conventions on what constitutes a "simple" design vs. a copyrightable "not so simple" one? Also, it would be helpful although probably not necessary to provide one example of the Episcopal shield and flag being published prior to 1977 without a copyright notice. Are you aware of any specific examples? I think these would be helpful because unlike the term "simple," there isn't much room for interpretation if it was widely published without the necessary ©/(c)/copyright wording. I ask because at first glance a design with at least 4 unique elements, at least 12 total elements, and where 1 of those unique elements is itself consists of 3 unique and 10 total elements is approaching if not into the realm of "not simple." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have caselaw I can email you, but I am also going off old DR's that explained that blazons cannot be copyrighted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Email will be fine. If it's an attachment e.g. PDF, drop me a line and I'll reply so you can mail me the attachment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is PDF. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not going away

Re: Not going away: I hope you are in good health and manage to avoid the drunk drivers this holiday season. I figured you wouldn't voluntarily disappear, I'm just saying we should nail down the copyright issues surrounding the Episcopal Church flag and shield in case the unexpected happens. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Work has been keeping me busy, but I have it set up where changes are emailed to me. Send me an email on Wikipedia and I can forward you case law about pd-simple. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Delinking dates

I made those settings available. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Cut and paste (from the edit window) into a text file called dates.xml, then load that as settings. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Zscout370. You have new messages at Wireless Keyboard's talk page.
Message added 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

4 files you deleted are NOT on the commons, not by those names anyways

These files are NOT all on the commons. Please put them there or restore them.

1. 07:02, 12 December 2009 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif" ‎ (F8: Media file available on Commons: File:Shield of the US Episcopal Church.svg)
2. 07:02, 12 December 2009 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:TEC arms.PNG" ‎ (F8: Media file available on Commons: File:Shield of the US Episcopal Church.svg)
3. 07:01, 12 December 2009 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:TEC flag.PNG" ‎ (F8: Media file available on Commons: File:Flag of the US Episcopal Church.svg)
4. 07:01, 12 December 2009 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Episcopal Arms.svg" ‎ (F8: Media file available on Commons: File:Shield of the US Episcopal Church.svg)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Were all of them unused? If not, would you do the honors of fixing up any red-linked images to point to similar commons images? Also, the talk pages on some of them may have important information related to the long discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:TEC_arms.PNG. Please consider restoring the files until the discussion closes OR pasting those talk pages and their histories to the end of that discussion? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

improper deletions

In an attempt to move things to closure--which I do appreciate--you deleted two images identifying them with F8 as the reason. But as it happens, your own deletions were contrary to what F8 explicitly says. Note carefully:

• The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution.

One of the images you deleted was a gif, but the Commons image is an svg.

• The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons.

As you know, the license is not beyond reasonable doubt. Now, while I would be delighted to see your image at the Commons remain as the only one, and be done with this mess, what happens if Commons deletes it? You yourself just deleted two images in violation of F8; other admins have likewise failed to apply the speedy deletion criteria correctly--even when they are as plain and explicit and easy to apply as F8. Tb (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

F8 does not apply to exact filename or exact format. I perform a lot of F8 deletions like that; it is little something I call IAR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You know the saying about IAR - you did it right if nobody complains. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And what happens when another admin, citing the same little do whatever you please idea, proceeds to delete your images from Commons? It's happened before, dude. Tb (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think "the same format" means in F8? In what way is a gif and an svg even remotely close to the same file format? How does the statement that you do it all the time make it better? What happened to the policy that admins don't make policy? Is that also something that you just ignore? Are there any rules or guidelines that you think apply to you? Tb (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria F1 and F8 are designed to work together, and it is improper to apply them as you did. The permission to delete in favor of a better image is granted by F1, and only for images both on Wikipedia. F8, which applies between the two, only allows speedy deletion of the image if it is the same format, free of any copyright discussion, etc. The difference is important. If you want F8 changed, then propose a change, but it is an irresponsible abuse of admin tools to take it upon yourself to override the community's clear consensus in the difference between F1 and F8. You should instead have allowed the community to decide whether to delete the image, rather than dictate the result by your own fiat. I ask you to revise your manner of proceeding in such cases and make a clear statement that you acknowledge your failure to abide by the CSD procedures, and that you will endeavor to do so in the future. Tb (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Scotland

Thanks for the work on GA nomination. Added/removed some data. How now? Endrick Shellycoat 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. I will make some edits and let you know when it will be ready. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers re. refs. I'll take to my sandbox and try to get these up to scratch ASAP. Endrick Shellycoat 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please could you visit Talk:Flag_of_Scotland/GA1#GA_Review when you have the opportunity. Many thanks. Endrick Shellycoat 13:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is stable, I can tell you that for sure. However, I cannot seem to get the template to use the green check mark. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just tried it, replace the ? with a y or n : Cheers. Endrick Shellycoat 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have added some comments of my own on the GA talk page. I think this article is far from GA status and is giving what appears to me a Scottish Nationalist POV. SatDen (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello User:Zscout370. On the basis of accusations/comments made by SatDen, (some valid, others not IMHO), I've made changes at Flag of Scotland. If you're happy to have another look at it I'd appreciate it very much, though I'd fully understand if you'd prefer to turn your attention elsewhere for the time being, in which case I'll take it back to WP:GAN. Cheers. Endrick Shellycoat 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and take it back to GAC. I feel the article is up to standards now, but I will also help you guide it towards FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for all your efforts - v.much appreciated. Endrick Shellycoat 09:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC) PS A library you say? Is that one of those places full of books that I used to visit in the days before children??? ;)

Yeah. I also been using Google Books and using cold hard cash to get books too for the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think I've done about as much tweaking of the article as I can do without just picking at it just for the sake of it. Would you mind having a last look before I throw it back in for WP:GAN? Also, if your feeling masochistic, I'm hoping to get a WP:PR of Royal Standard of Scotland. Interested? (Or know of someone who might be?) RegardsEndrick Shellycoat 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks again - 'Happy Holidays' as you guys say. Endrick Shellycoat 11:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks

I should say as well that I'm pleased with the copy of the shield and flag which you created, which are attractive and functional, and if they stay, will be excellent. Thank you for creating them. I am worried that in a year they'll get deleted from Commons, and we'll all be back here again. Tb (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The flag has been up since 2006, the shield design is the the same as the flag. It is PD-simple, plain and simple :). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You see, that's where Tb has an issue: I am not convinced these qualify for PD-simple, as they aren't "simple." While I am not going to make a big issue of it, Tb is concerned that in a month or a year or in 5 years someone will and the images will be deleted. I wouldn't consider that scenario particularly likely, but he has reason to be concerned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My own image was deleted, despite the fact that I drew it fifteen years ago. Thanks to the attitude of admins who disregard community consensus and claim IAR, it will occur again. Tb (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

www.ds.org.yu and www.zorandjindjic.org images

I don't have the e-mail, it is over on Serbian Wikipedia - [4]. Admin Pokrajac [5] is the one who dealt with this particular request. Also keep in minds that the domain of www.ds.org.yu is now www.ds.rs due to domain change for Serbia.--Avala (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Episcopal Shield

I just got permission to use the official Episcopal Shield logo file. Would it be possible for me to reupload the file or get the permission attached the version of the shield in use. -Vcelloho (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On the shield in use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Query

What specifically is the problem? You have 3 images on that page. Two are copyrightable (the top two) while the last one is not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wake Forest images: Not all that important as to which text-only logo you use, they are all PD-text. If I had to pick one, I'd use this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I just used the one that you had, the W and the F. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Majulah Singapura Phoon Yew Tien 20 November 2000.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Majulah Singapura Phoon Yew Tien 20 November 2000.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to restore

Please restore File:Disney Channel 2007.svg; the last time I checked it rendered perfectly fine. If not, I'll check the file on my system to see what's wrong. Thank you, ZooFari 23:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The second file was a PNG embedded SVG file and those always break. Also, why a 10 MB file for something that is 10x20 pixels? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall a non-embedded SVG file. Maybe I'm confusing it with a different file but I'd still like it restored. ZooFari 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You can upload a new file. I can give you the rationales so you do not have to fill them out again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like a good reason why you don't want to restore for it for a few seconds. ZooFari 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I already told you; the files are broken. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The file was up for cleanup and I downloaded it awhile ago. Never mind, I'll ask elsewhere. ZooFari 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When you deal with SVG files like I do, I noticed several things. I saw embedded images in the 10 Meg file, which breaks SVG files. I fixed the file and it is now under 20 KB. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything, but alright. Please be more careful next time. ZooFari 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I know what I am doing. :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg

Hi Zscout370. Could you please undo this edit for now? We're currently discussing this at WP:ANI#User: BQZip01. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am joining the discussion there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing what was going on there. If they'd listen instead of assuming bad faith/ignoring me, they would have noticed that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I was following ANI and noticed BQ in a heated debate suggesting that a troll was responsible for some misunderstandings today. I followed one of his links to one User:Grandma Dottie and was supprised to find that: at here That almost simultaniously User:Hammersoft and User:ThreeE came to her defense, tagteaming User:BQZip01. Has anyone followed up on these 2(?) user(s)? I smell a rat, but I'm not logging in to file an SPI and have them focus on me. Do you think this is related to today? FYI1369 (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was out of the country when all of that took place, so I cannot say for sure really. There are very few users that deal with copyright policy or anything dealing with images, so having run ins with each other is very common. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flag of the People's Republic of China

The article Flag of the People's Republic of China you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Flag of the People's Republic of China for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing your concerns right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

British Indian flag

Hi. As the uploader of this flag, would you be able to comment on its origins at File talk:Anglo-Indian Indentity.svg? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		Congratulations on getting "Flag of Singapore" to FA status, and thanks for your contributions to Singapore-related articles! (Perhaps "Coat of arms of Singapore" is next?) — JackLee, 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Zscout370 by JackLee –talk– on 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that I'm conferring a barnstar that you yourself created! Maybe you'd like to work on a Singapore Barnstar of National Merit. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For the Singaporean Barnstar, what people have done is take the ribbon part and change it to the national flag. But this is very exciting news. 2 years of work and look at it now! Thanks! User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you seem to be pretty handy with graphics, so I was thinking you might want to try doing that... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I already have a list of articles I am working on. Flag of Japan is my next goal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Jacklee and Zscout370! Congratulations on Flag of Singapore attaining FA status! Also wishing both of you a happy new year! Jacklee, how is your PhD going? Would you have time to work with me (and others) on the 2010 National Day Project? A brilliant writer like you should have little problems getting Singapore in Malaysia to GA and OTD (and perhaps writing another DYK). You, too, deserve a barnstar, and I suggest that Zscout370 design a "Countering Systemic Bias Barnstar"! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how OTD works. Is it possible to nominate "Flag of Singapore" for OTD – for example, the date that the flag was officially adopted (3 December 1959, if I've read the article correctly)? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an FA, Flag of Singapore easily meets the quality bar, but we would need to convince others that the official adoption of our flag is an event with "moderate to great historical significance". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, that could be a problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was think of "Today's FA on August 9th." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Singapore would be a great Main Page FA on 9 August! That was why we spent months making the article our 4th FA. Meanwhile, our independence (as detailed in Singapore in Malaysia) could be featured in OTD, while each of the four DYK updates would have a Singapore-related article (I could work on most of the DYKs). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RFCN

Hi there! It seems the reports you added to WP:RFCN aren't appropriate for that page... I recommend you take a second look at the instructions at the top of the page before you add any more. Particularly make sure the user has continued to edit since the issue has been raised on their talk page. This ensures they have a chance to respond one-on-one before the larger community is drawn into the discussion; also we consider any username issue not a problem if the user has stopped editing. Keep in mind that WP:UAA is a significantly different process from WP:RFCN and the reports at the former are rarely transferable to the latter. Thanks, and happy editing! -kotra (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was following the instructions at the previous page, where it says take stuff RFCN when the user has been communicated to about the issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The full instructions says "Do not post the issue here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply." But if there are conflicting instructions, that is something we should fix. -kotra (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I saw: "If the user has already been warned of their violation: Consider taking your request to RFCN, which is a forum for discussing possible violations after the user has already been notified and had a chance to discuss." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I think the problem is "...and had a chance to discuss" is open to interpretation. Personally I think 10 hours is not enough time to allow for a response, especially during the holiday season. But maybe you see it differently. In any case, the two pages don't match up exactly, so I'll start a discussion at WT:UAA. -kotra (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think RFCN will allow for a wider discussion, but oh well, at least others know now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Admiral of the Indian Navy rank flag.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Admiral of the Indian Navy rank flag.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Admiral of the Indian Navy rank flag.svg

{{Tb|Fastily}} -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Covered Carriage Truck BR 94300.png

Thanks, that's extremely irritating, but thank you for the info, I sent a message to the guy to ask permission. (By the way is there a page listing what all the different copyrights do in plain English?)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 04:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the President of India.svg

Would you be able to add an image for this? I'd like to create an "other flags" section on the Flag of India article and if possible include this. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can try. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there's a link in List of Indian flags to this, but it looks like it was never uploaded. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When I checked the earlier history, it used to be gif. The file was deleted in 2007 because it came from a website that does not allow us to use their work commercially. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I just searched for files on the pedia, I didn't think of looking through the history. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if you created the flag at commons (in List of Indian flags? It was uploaded today, but the elephant and scale are not the "correct" images...cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I did make the image at Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Castlemaine Images

Hi there,

it's been a while since I edited Wikipedia. You left a message on my user page to the effect that you could restore some images from the Castlemaine page that had been deleted because of their uncertain copyright status.

I can confirm that the images were taken by me, and am happy to place them in the public domain. --Robert Merkel (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you so much. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Florida Atlantic University winged monogram.svg

Could you undelete? This logo consists of letters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And very ornate wings on the sides. Sorry, I just do not feel this image is public domain due to it being simple. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ornamentation isn't copyrightable. It isn't PD due to being "simple", but to being "textual". Even if it is, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a fair use. This is also a contested deletion and should go through the deletion process. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The only people who deleted and restored this image was me because I had a period of self doubt. However, from judging by the age of the logo (in the 2000's, so copyright is automatic) and while it does have the letters FAU, the letters were designed in a way that is not very simple. I am sorry, but I do not believe this image will be public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have it restored and go through a WP:FFD discussion first if you don't mind. As I stated before, perhaps not so well, "simple" is not a criteria to determine copyrightability. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

English name of Japanese law

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#English name of Japanese law. Regards, Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Dang! you beat me to it! :P I placed a warning on the IP's talk about refactoring though, so it's all good. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I will decline to participate. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Zscout370! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Vital Kramko - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Myechyslaw Hryb - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Uładzimir Hančaryk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Sergei Gaidukevich - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Mikhail Savicki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Filaret, Metropolitan of Minsk and Slutsk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Mikalay Dzyemyantsyey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Images questions

I've been following the FAC for the Vimy Memorial, and I commented here about two of the images. Is that helpful or are you looking for stuff other than that. If that is helpful, I will try and dig up stuff for the other images as well (though some of those questions are best answered by the uploader, who is also the nominator of the article). Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Japan

I can see you've already done a lot of work, it'll be great if you can do all of this before the FAC wears out (but I guess there aren't time limits for them really). I'll look in later when I feel up to it - got a bit of a cold at the moment and concentrating on big tasks for a long time isn't easy! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New image added at FAC, could you please review it too?

Hi Zscout, thanks for reviewing the images and your support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1. Per the discussion there, a new lead image has been added to the infobox. Could you please review it too? It is File:Jay Pritzker Pavilion four fold composite.JPG and is a composite of four images, all on Commons. You already reviewed the top left image. Sorry for the extra work, and thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

it looks fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I might have misunderstood what was going on in the FAC - when you wrote "Support images look good" I assumed you were doing an image review (checking licenses and the like), so that is why I asked you to review the new image. It now occurs to me that you might have just been saying that you liked the images, without doing a technical review of them specifically. If it was an image review, would you mind saying the new image is OK on the FAC page too? If it was not, sorry for the mixup (but glad you think the image looks fine in any case). Thanks, and sorry to keep bothering you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was doing image reviews. Generally, the article had a lot of images taken by the uploaders themselves and it is hard to fight against that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - could you please say at the FAC that the new composite image's licenses are OK too? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Ah I see, no harm done, we should then add all 10 entities appearing on that list, upto and including NK, and Somaliland. Do you want to do that or should I do it? Outback the koala (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. But I had issues with Northern Cyprus' flag. Would you mind looking into that? Outback the koala (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of issue? If it is about a border, then follow the examples with Japan and South Korea. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I couldn't find the file name to insert. The one off the state's main page didn't seem to work either. Outback the koala (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag_of_the_Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

right, I must be doing something wrong. Outback the koala (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

btw, I left a hidden note in the space it needs to be placed on that page. Outback the koala (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag

I don't doubt what you're saying is true, Zscout, but the image page needs evidence of it. The Japan PD tag that was there said it applied to text, not images. We need something showing that this image was created in 1954 (a page with an image of it, or the name of it), a translation so that people can understand what it says, and some evidence that images and text are PD after 50 years. I'm sorry to be a pain, but the FA image criteria are that the image policies must be strictly adhered to. It's possible that the delegates will take a less strict view than me -- this is one of my first image reviews and I'm still finding my feet. Here is something you might want to read about the requirements for images for FAC. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you are doing your job. Anyways, the Commons has a template called {{PD-Japan-organization}}. It states "This image is now in the public domain because the copyrights of the works in names of organizations in Japan expire in 50 years after the publication, or in 50 years after the creation if the works are not published within 50 years after the creation (article 53)." The organization in question is the Japan Defense Agency (now the Ministry of Defense). And, if my math is correct, 1954+50 is 2004. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Japan article editing

Will be glad to start working on this and seeing what I can do. Cortina2 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB work

Hey there. You seem to be removing whitespace or changing HTML entities to their actual form on pages like Database reports and in things like user signatures. Can you stop, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also seemed to have snagged some userpages in the process. Ok, stopped. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

• I use AWB all the time. Really. But running AWB over talk pages, FAC pages etc. probably is not cool. AWB is for content pages only. • Ling.Nut 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It ran over my entire watchlist, including talk pages and FAC pages. I reverted all of the user talk page edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I always filter the list to remove everything except content pages... In fact, I should go over to WP:AWB and rant at them to rmv the option to edit talk pages etc. But that would be a little tiring. maybe another day. Anyhow, filter is the key word for the day. • Ling.Nut 11:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

They do have a filter, I just forgot to run it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian Hymn

Yes, I am the one that FARCed your article. Finally, I achieved my objective: I am glad to see that you have steadily increased the article and made it better. Feel free to use information and the timeline I made in the Spanish version. When it is a FA again in English I will translate it! I'll give a few advices:

• In Regulations it would be grat to cite the article of the Law it refers, since that paragraph is uncited in some points. (check the Spanish version)
• Improve the music section, by describing the score in musical terms. Like it is written in 4/4 (common time) and it follows the pattern AA', one section is played and repeated afterwards. It can be scored for brass bands, symphonic orchestra and chorus, piano and chorus, a capella, etc. It is in C major.

Thanks for your time, your are an expert in these topics! I'm just trying to help. See you! OboeCrack (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not your fault, but as I told Cirt, I was on vacation in Japan and wanted to avoid using Wikipedia during that vacation. The anthem regulations are at http://www.gov.ru/main/symbols/gsrf4_1.html and all of the information there is in this regulation. I felt that having a citation after every sentence was odd if this one law covers everything. I can mention about the sheet music. However, do you want me to have it something like Law_Regarding_the_National_Flag_and_National_Anthem_(Japan)#Provisions_about_the_anthem? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, just do it as your own criteria and see what happens in the FAC! 81.32.248.214 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Shield of the US Episcopal Church.svg

Hi Zscout, First I want to thank you for creating the ECUSA shield. It is, IMHO, a rendering superior to that which the Church uses officially. Nice work. Secondly, it would be great to clear up the copyright/license issue once and for all, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen. I have a suggestion to do just that.

The way I see it, the file currently has the wrong copyright tags. The work (a visual depiction of the blazon Argent, a cross gules, on a canton azure nine cross-crosslets argent in saltire) is entirely yours, you created an original rendering of that heraldic description, making you the exclusive copyright holder of that work.

You have, as the copyright holder, licensed it under CC-BY-SA and GFDL; so far, so good. The problem is with the copyright tags. The {{PD-shape}} tag is debatable (and unnecessary), and the {{PD-US-no notice}} is incorrect; the work was not published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, it was published in December of 2009 by you, the creator and sole copyright owner.

You could legitimately just tag it {{PD-self}}, but ignorant admins will continue the cycle of deletion, wrongly claiming that it is a copy of a copyrighted image. My suggestion is as follows:

1. Adjust the description to read: This work is a visual representation of the blazon Argent, a cross gules, on a canton azure nine cross-crosslets argent in saltire in a heraldic escutcheon (coat of arms).
2. Leave the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses as they are.
3. Remove the {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-shape}} tags.
4. Add {{Coat of Arms}} tag.[6]

The {{Coat of Arms}} tag is the key, in that it explains that the blazon/definition/composition/description is public domain with respect to copyright laws, but that the representation of a coat of arms is an artistic creation, subject as such to copyright; in this case, your copyright.

I hope this all makes sense, it would be great to shut down the deletion merry-go-round once and for all. I remember the same crap going on 4-5 years ago when I was first active on WP. I noticed in the semi-current discussion that Tb had been quite active, I've left a note for him pointing here; I hope you don't mind. Thanks for your time, and thanks again for creating the shield. Wine Guy Talk 00:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will give it some thought. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NAVA Meeting flags.

I'd like to see the flags for the last three North American Vexillogical Association meetings loaded, but I don't know how to make them SVGs. The files are at http://www.nava.org/NAVA%20Meetings/nava41/NAVA41%20FLAG.jpg , http://www.nava.org/NAVA%20Meetings/nava42/images/nava42flag.jpg and http://www.nava.org/NAVA%20Meetings/nava43/images/NAVA43Flag.gif . I'm pretty sure the only place they would be used would be on North American Vexillological Association.Naraht (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The jpeg and gif images will be fine; NAVA has given permission for the meeting flags to go on Wikipedia as is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Vector-Images.com images

I have nominated Category:Vector-Images.com images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. This barnstar is awarded to Zscout370 for his diligence in monitoring wikipedia. thank you for your tireless efforts. The community is a better place because of you. Ikip 09:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Florida Atlantic University winged monogram.svg

<unarchived> Could you undelete? This logo consists of letters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And very ornate wings on the sides. Sorry, I just do not feel this image is public domain due to it being simple. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ornamentation isn't copyrightable. It isn't PD due to being "simple", but to being "textual". Even if it is, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a fair use. This is also a contested deletion and should go through the deletion process. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The only people who deleted and restored this image was me because I had a period of self doubt. However, from judging by the age of the logo (in the 2000's, so copyright is automatic) and while it does have the letters FAU, the letters were designed in a way that is not very simple. I am sorry, but I do not believe this image will be public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have it restored and go through a WP:FFD discussion first if you don't mind. As I stated before, perhaps not so well, "simple" is not a criteria to determine copyrightability. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on this request? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will personally not restore the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN reviewing

I noticed that you passed Noriko Matsueda with even creating a review page. also that you passed Takahito_Eguchi with a cursory review at Talk:Takahito_Eguchi/GA1. Both articles seem to rely heavily on Square Enix Music Online which doesn't appear to meet the requirements of reliable sourcing. I have started a discussion about this at WT:Good article nominations#Two recent reviews by User:Zscout370. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi again, I notice that you have a section on your user page encouraging people to make donations to you via PayPal for your Wikipedia activities. This seems to me to be somewhat inappropriate and I am seeking guidance on this at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User page for Zscout370. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not the first and Wikipedia:Userpage#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F does not say anything about this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I understand that. Please don't think that I am attacking you. I just am surprised to see this on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I been around for many years; I have seen people ask for donations for their edits, for their work on bots, among other things. Different other language projects have reward schemes that came way before ours. I just find it odd that you disliked how I am trying to clear the backlog for GAN, then start prodding everything. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. two separate issues. I understand your points about soliciting money for your editing work. I don't particularly agree with it, but as you say, there is no specific prohibition of this. With regards to the GAN reviews, as I understand it, it is customary to to actually provide a review rather than just passing the article and I also have serious concerns about the referencing as there seems to be a distinct lack of reliable sources. I am sorry but I don't understand your comments about prodding everything? Jezhotwells (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You came here and talked about the GAN reviews, then started what I feel like is an investigation. Then, this is where the prodding everything comes into to play, talk about my userpage and send me to yet another investigation without even just saying "can I speak to you about..." first. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please accept that I am acting in good faith. I have real concerns about the reviews cited above. I happened to look at your user page after I had posted about the reviews. I was, as I said above, surprised to see that your were soliciting donations for your work here. I note the WP:REWARD page, and would add that I don't particularly agree with the idea of it on tis collaborative project. However it exists, so I consider my query about the appropraiteness of such solicitations answered. I am not trying to stalk you or anything like that, just raising genuine concerns. I am not trying to have you investigated. I have no idead of whether or not you have previously been investigated, and I am not interested in that. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hero of Belarus

Hi, Zscout370. As I understand, you are the main editor of the article "Hero of Belarus". I have made some changes in it as consider that some information has become old. But I would like to notice you about it, as there may be some mistakes, because English is not my native. So, please, look at it. SZv (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can take a look at it later, but thanks for providing updates. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vector-images.com

Template:Vector-images.com has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Flag of Japan

Hi, Zscout370! I would love to copyedit Flag of Japan. My upcoming schedule means I'll be away for the coming weekend (1/29-1/31), so much of my work with this article will be done during Wednesday and Thursday. I will make a note about my completion with the copy in the review when finished. Cheers! mheart (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Japan FAC

Hi -- no, sorry, I haven't reviewed it for content, so I can't say if prose is the only issue with the article. I will look at it again after the copyedit. Good luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zscout370. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

	<font=3> Thanks again for your image review and support. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is now a featured article! TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

West Indies

Just to inform you that there is a discussion which might involve you on Template talk:Country data West Indies. I don't really understand it though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Most likely an issue about the flag being a derivative work of copyrighted content. I do agree with what they are saying, but I have a different idea on what flag should be used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zscout370, thanks for undertaking the cleanup work for this flag. I have one request for your current AWB run: please change all instances of {{flagicon|West Indies}} and {{flagicon|West Indies}} to {{noflag}} (with the closing brace of that template call immediately adjacent to the following text). The instances of {{cr}} do not need to be changed, just flagicon. The reason is that flagicon will render the transparent placeholder space, but you could actually click on it to get to the West Indies Cricket Board article! Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just removing the images at this moment. I will try and do that next time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I can do a run too. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and do yours. I am just trying to remove the image so we can see really where this image can go for fair use purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit summary

I'm sure there was a good reason for this edit, but the edit summary is extremely unhelpful. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. Anyways, the file was deleted as a copyvio from the Commons and needed to be removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.svg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot provide one at the moment, so redeleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		Like a Box of Chocolates...
		... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:JD Salinger.jpg

The blog has a less distorted image, and there are no criteria for a the quality of an image source, therefore I would propose we use the better image. Prodego ^talk 16:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• The mindset that I had is this; where did the blog get THEIR image. Call this a byproduct of dealing with FAC's but I try and aim for the better source. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Aberglaube

Hello, I would be very grateful if you protect my user page only admins. Thank you :-) Δεισιδαιμονία 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Japan copyedit completed

Hi, Zscout370! I've completed my copyediting for Flag of Japan. There is still one issue on the talk page regarding the meaning of the sun up for discussion. mheart (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am looking at it right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. :) I hope it gets to FA! mheart (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too. I am trying to contact the opposers and see if there is anything else or I can take it to FAC soon (again). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One last SchoolcraftT image

Zach, there's one last image that SchoolcraftT had posted up at Commons:File:Mollohan Mill.jpg. I had previously added this version because of a spelling error in the original SchoolcraftT had uploaded to commons. Since you removed the rest of his files, would you mind doing the honors on this one? Thanks. Brian Powell (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Image delete

When you deleted this image, did you miss the {{nocommons}} template that has been on the page since July 2008? Perhaps you'll want to undelete this. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wondering why there is a need to have the file locally? It will "Block" the Commons file. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The file was transferred to Commons over my explicit objections in the first place; additionally, the Commons version does not meet the requirements of the CC-BY licence the image is under as it is not correctly attributed. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Once files are uploaded to a Wikimedia project under a valid license then the community has the right to place the images where they fit in best. On Commons the file is available to wikipedias in other languages so therefore the best place is Commons.

As for attribution it is a little "strange" because the information is a mix of the info from enwiki and the image from Flickr ({{cc-by-2.0}}). We only need the file in highest possible resolution so unless you as author wants to release the higher version in {{cc-by-3.0}} the license should be changes to 2.0 and links should be made to Flickr (the source).

Feel free to change license as you prefer. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not my job to correct Commons errors. At the moment, the image does not provide the attribution required, although the local copy did. Therefore, Commons is breaking the terms of the licence under which the image was released. What they do is up to them, but on Wikipedia the image was correct and was tagged to not be deleted. I note that starting this conversation with you led you to point your bot at my image uploads. Please butt out of this conversation, which is between me and Zscout, especially when you don't appear to know what you're talking about when it comes to attribution. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He's involved Redvers. Anyways, I checked the English page and it indeeds have more information than the Commona page. I transfered everything to the Commons. However, I looked at this diff with concern. The smaller image was blocking the larger file at the Commons and...there is really no reason I can think of it should do that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He is now, via WP:POINT. Moving on, state your concern about that diff. It's simply the diff I gave earlier as being the point where I placed the {{nocommons}} tag (which you, I still believe accidentally, didn't see). Because you accidentally missed the nocommons tag, you will of course restore the local copy - in whichever version - to rectify the mistake. And the Commons version is still not correct in the attribution (although thanks for trying). My flickr uploads are very clear that there's a requirement for how to attribute and Commons simply won't do this, meaning that all images uploaded to Commons (without first going through Wikipedia) are in breach of the Creative Commons licence they're under. Commons doesn't care, because that's how Commons is - a nest of such violations. Wikipedia does. Or, at least, this Wikipedia admin does. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal photo album. If image is not needed it can be deleted. You can not prevent deletion by adding a template. Also you can not prevent an article from being edited by adding some "Do not edit my article". I hope you agree on that.

Mistakes happen and I asked you nice if you would prefer to be attributed as en-wiki user or Flickr user. Based on your comments I take it that you prefer that the image on Commons is attributed to your Flickr account. --MGA73 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am looking at the Flickr page right now, ok. I will go ahead and restore the local copy, but I will need to use the bigger image (that was my main concern is this lower resolution image was blocking a higher one uploaded by a Flickr bot.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with that. Thanks, Zscout. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing right now is that we have a lot of images that are "Commons ready" that they are under a good license, uploaded correctly but didn't see that No Commons tag. Currently, I am looking at that No Commons category but only dealing with images that cannot legally be uploaded to the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

I claim fair use in images if they're on the Commons but aren't clearly PD. There are lots of images on the Commons that aren't clearly licensed or PD, and others where they're free in their country of origin, but not in the U.S. (or not clearly so). In those circumstances, esp if I'm nominating something for the FAC process, I have to make sure the image is right for Wikipedia, regardless of what the Commons is doing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did nominate one of your fair use images for deletion at the Commons. I nomimnated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Refugees from Lydda.jpg. If you take a look at Commons:Licensing, the work must be PD in both the USA and the source country in order for it to be hosted there. The Israeli image, as I pointed out, was not PD before 1996 and must be deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how do you know that wasn't PD before 1996? I'm very confused about these old Israeli images; some people say they're PD in Israel and the U.S. Others say not in the U.S.. No one has been able to explain their reasoning. What would you say about this one, for example? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthem: again!

Did you start a nomination for GA? Check its talk page, because it hasn't been started since 30 dic. OboeCrack (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did, but no one reviewed it yet. There is a long line in music for articles to be reviewed and I guess people like to work on stuff related to Michael Jackson, Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References

I couldn't see exactly what you meant. Sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

SchoolcraftT Again on Commons

Hi, Zach. User:SchoolcraftT has been reuploading a number of the images that you had previously deleted on Wikimedia Commons for copyright concerns, plus some other similar ones as well. No meta data. Most he's claiming came from a Stanley Anderson but hasn't provided any proof. One, Commons:File:Potato knob.jpg looks like it comes from the same place as the others but SchoolcraftT claims he took it himself. Would you mind taking a look at this and consider maybe blocking him over there as well? Thanks. Brian Powell (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Once the DR's are finished, me and other admins will look over this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletions

"Unused file without a license" is not a CSD. Please stop these deletions and tag images properly. I am going through the PD backlog in an orderly manner trying to salvage old files by applying the proper tags. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, please restore the hundreds of images you have deleted out of process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zscout370. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 04:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 04:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi Zscout. I finally completed the 3-hour copy edit on Flag of Japan. It was an interesting article, and very well done, nice work. Here is a list of changes I made. Because some changes were very significant, I just wanted to make a quick request to look over them and make sure I didn't adversely affect any content. Please feel free to raise any issues or questions. Again, nice work! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• All of the confusing changes you had questions on, you found me in IRC. I wish I was there sooner to deal with any more questions, but work was horrible today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted files

I see you instantly archived my complaint about your out-of-process deletions and never restored the images. When are you going to do this? I checked your logs and didn't see any obvious deletion sprees like this in the past, but can you confirm this was a one-time-only thing? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Images not being restored; they were orphaned images that had no license and no source. I will not promise that this will be the last mass-image deletion; few admins deal with images and I routinely mass delete images on the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not true... They were tagged {{PD}}, which is deprecated, but which is not the same as a lack of license. And even if they lacked a source and no license you would still be required to notify the uploaders to give them a chance to supply one. If you want to delete files like this get a new speedy criterion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zscout370. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AWB in Ukrainian Wikipedia

Hi, here you asked for AWB permission in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Do you still need it? If yes, I can grant it to you — NickK (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? --Clyde700 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To perform image changes that are started at the Commons, but cannot be completed by Delinker due to one reason or another. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Himno Nacional Mexicano for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My ban from wikipedia Commons

I have been blocked with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) on Wikipedia Commons by you. For uploading files without source/licensing after warnings. I did not get any warning from you that I was about to be blocked, did not get any change to responed to my block. So here it goes: File:3D animated flag Ukraine.gif was not a violation of copyright since I made it myself and realeased it under a free licence on wikipedia commons. I never deserved to get banned and I would apriaciate if you would lift my ban and restore my handmade File:3D animated flag Ukraine.gif, if not I'll try to get myself unblocked another way, not sure how cause unlike on this wikipedia I got no information on how to apeal to my ban... I assume you made your error in good faith. I only uploaded my file under the same name of an earlier deleted file because that way editors who had used the (flag)file on there pages would automaticly get the "flag" back on there pages. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The block was not just for that, but if you promise me to stop uploading at this moment, I will lift the block at the Commons.

Alright, the first image said it came from http://3dflags.com/world/ukrainian/national_flag/classic_waving_clip_art.html. The license at http://3dflags.com/about/terms-of-use.html#link-back-media-license says "YOU MAY NOT ACTIVELY REDISTRIBUTE OR SUBLICENSE ANY OF OUR GRAPHICS OR DIGITAL MEDIA UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. The Digital Media may not be used in any online or other electronic distribution system, such as an online gallery or collection of graphics and/or animated GIFs, including collections available on CD-ROM, BBS, FTP, WWW, IRC or any other transfer methods, and may not be sold, distributed, or sublicensed individually or as part of any image archive or collection product." The second image came from http://www.clipartdb.com/gif-ukraine-flags-3dclipart-862.htm but now I just noticed that it is also from the 3D flags site. It was deleted by a DR. The third image came from http://www.atlasgeo.net/flags/anglais/html/Eukraine.htm so it was a blatant copyvio. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never visited http://www.atlasgeo.net/flags/anglais/html/Eukraine.htm... I made the file myself, of course it looks like other "waving Ukrainian flags", what did you expect? I do not understand why you present your above statment as the absolute truth since you can not see what websites I visit. Please start assuming good faith again. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe you, frankly. I double checked the images and they are exactly the same, down to every last detail. The image will not be restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true shouldn’t I get a 48 hour block instead of a infinite block? But I got a infinite block over a “waving Ukrainian flag”. That looks like complete overkill… I did never got any warning I was about to get blocked, thus you did not follow procedure. Please at least restore my account on Commons. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As I told you, the block was not just for the flag. There is a lot of uploads I saw that were deleted for copyright issues and for false licenses. I will not unblock you, but another user might. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, I am just very harsh it when it comes to images. But as I said before, if you promise me to stop uploading to the Commons, the block will be lifted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Armenian flag

Hi, what did you mean about the standard? Do you need the translation? Within the last months I gather material for the articles about Armenian carpet, so I was "lazy" in English Wiki. I do not know yet, when I will finish the article on Armenian carpet. But Please, write, what is needed, I will be helpful. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Liza Fernández Rodríguez

RE: this diff, for those of us who don't have OTRS access, could you put a note on the talk page explaining why this article has been semi-protected for so long? This is one of Wikipedia's longest semi-protected articles and prima facie, inappropriately so. Thanks, causa sui× 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP issues from the subject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ARC Weekly Top 40

I've noticed you delinking "ARC Weekly Top 40". Please don't do that: either ignore it or remove it completely. Removing the links to the dead article but leaving the reference to the bad chart makes it more difficult to remove references to the bad chart.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer is walking me through exactly what is needed, so I am dealing with that now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of Liza Fernández Rodríguez

Hi there, could you please review Your indefinite semi-protection of Liza Fernández Rodríguez? I appreciate the BLP concerns, but it seemed excessive given only 1 episode of vandalism by 1 specific IP that could have been blocked instead. Thanks. 118.7.177.114 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks on the IP would not have been possible at the time. I will rethink about the protection. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of Uniform display case

Hi there, could you please review Your indefinite semi-protection of Uniform display case? It seemed more like content dispute. Please unprotect. Thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was mostly used for spam. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How does a couple of IP's restoring the original article over a period of several months imply that "it was mostly used for spam", that case isn't clear at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information being restored was to keep a link to a commercial site that sold these cases. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And the first time a different IP actually removed those changes. I kinda see that maybe protecting the article for 3 months or something might have made life easier as its just a redirect, but really I'm not convinced that it should be semi-protected forever. I'm also not convinced that it wasn't about the content rather than linking to an external site - especially the second time it was restored. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi ZScout. As this request is now at RPP, can you let me know (at RPP preferably) whether you're happy with your protection, or you're happy for another admin to look at it (or a different choice!). Thanks. GedUK  10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I've got involved with this in two different places at once and that wasn't fair :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering it was 3 years ago when I did this, I will probably lift it (and keep an eye on it). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW Its on my watch list too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you noticed I just lifted it. All I ask is just make sure the article (if it is made) just does not become commercial spam. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that seems to be reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I meant to swing by and lend my support to the Flag of Japan FAC which is much improved now, but seems like I just missed the boat! Glad it passed without my support anyway. Jouzu desu, omodetou gozaimsu! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• bows* arigatou!. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Zscout370. You have new messages at SMasters's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Flag of Belgium

Hello. Could you please explain the changes you made to the flag of Belgium on Commons? I don't understand what you've said (or done), but it seems to me that the version I put up is as close to official as possible. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. While I did make email changes with the Belgium government, I found some very, very glaring issues. For example, you cannot give CMYK a half value, it can either be 8 or be 9. A lot of the programs that work with CMYK, such as Inkscape, cannot do that and also changes the CMYK values automatically. The second glaring issue is that, according to Pantone, there is no such thing as Pantone 02. However, I do remember that some flags like Luxembourg, Canada and Singapore uses a Pantone shade called Pantone 032, so I picked that. I used http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx to get the Pantone shades. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

JAL logo

Greetings, thanks for updating File:JAL logo.svg to a new resolution based on this PDF: http://www.jal.com/ja/ir/shareholder/tsushin/backnb/soukan0211.pdf. However, the new logo seems to have lost the silver gradient that is found on the 'arc' element of the logo. It now appears as a flat dark gray. The very PDF logo (on page 2) still has that gradient, as is the case on most JAL websites and aircraft. The JAL main site logo description also notes the official colors as red, silver, and black: http://www.jal.com/en/jals_brand/ Can the new logo be updated to reflect that? I realize this is a bit of a detail issue, but thanks for any help in this regard. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version with the gradient. I tried to match it as close as possible. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Zscout370 for obliging with that. It now looks more accurate than before. I really appreciate your fast response and assistance. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of Web office

There only seems to have been one IP vandal at the time of protection. Can you reconsider? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lifted, considering all it is now is just a bloody redirect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

re: National Anthem of Russia

Absolutely, I would be glad to look the article over for copy editing issues and correct any I see. It's not currently tagged for any style issues - will I find any requests in the history or are you aware of any specific problems I should address first? ocrasaroon (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All the FAC said to do was copyedit, so everything is fair game. The styles for song titles have been fixed by Durova already. User:Zscout370

^{(Return Fire)} 06:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking it over now - removing dead links and rewording a few things before I go to bed tonight. I can see where a lot of the major problems are: run-on sentences and just poor wording that makes the article difficult to read (especially to an American.) My mother is a music professor so I'd like to check with her about some of the factuality, standard capitalization and such. Give me a few days and I'll do what I can!ocrasaroon (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Take as much time. I am from the US, but I admit I wrote this at like 2-3 AM every night for four nights in a row. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's page has been touched by a WikiFairy.

Been sick as balls for about a week, but I'm back on my feet. Just wanted to let you know I hadn't forgotten about this! ocrasaroon (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know how that feels. Just remember, even though there is an FAC about this article, there is no deadlines on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Centrepoint (commune), Bert Potter

I note that you had deleted Centrepoint (commune) since it was an attack page. I think I split the orig content form Bert Potter which was also deleted by you. They are notable topics. Can you userfy them so I can use them as a basis for new pages? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just create something new. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall some stuff that was useful in the articles. It would be good to see what it was as a prompt for the updated articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Centerpoint article only has 3 edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

But what sort of edits? I recall some good info in the article -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If there was any content, it was all unsourced and about living people and I will not restore it or share the information with you. Make it a anew. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Jordan flag document

I dont know what is that, But I found it here, and I ll try to find it and scan it for you, but I dont have any Idea how to get it, any ideas?? MaenK.A._Talk 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a document showing how to make the Jordan flag. I only linked the page to show where I found it. I will also try and get it, but my suggestion is probably head to their office in Jordan and see what happens there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Order of the Rising Sun rosette.png

Thanks for uploading File:Order of the Rising Sun rosette.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Source was myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Order of the Rising Sun rosette.png

Thanks for uploading File:Order of the Rising Sun rosette.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I drew the file, I was able to give permission for it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko

The Polish nationalists again keep on deleting the Belarusian categories and references in the Tadeusz Kościuszko page. Free Belarus (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Use the talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

You seem to be good at pictures. Do you think you could make a picture of the flag of Markham, Ontario? I know it is not particularly easy to find any images of it, but I can describe it. Or is having this picture unnecessary? Brambleclawx 01:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

From the hints I found on Google, is it a logo/seal on a blue background? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Do you need a more detailed description of the flag? Brambleclawx 02:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For right now, that is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. Brambleclawx 02:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg

Hi Zscout, you edited Namibia with a summary "removing the deleted File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg". I noticed that this deleted file broke a number of templates, including the one used on the Namibia page. I am unsure how to fix this, is there a replacement for this file? --Pgallert (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No replacement so far as we are trying to determine the copyright over the flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why delete links to File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg when this deletion is under debate? If the flag returns, as I expect, you get to put everything back where it belongs. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is restored on here, it will be under fair use and cannot be restored everywhere. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Belgium

[Copied from archives] Hello. Could you please explain the changes you made to the flag of Belgium on Commons? I don't understand what you've said (or done), but it seems to me that the version I put up is as close to official as possible. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. While I did make email changes with the Belgium government, I found some very, very glaring issues. For example, you cannot give CMYK a half value, it can either be 8 or be 9. A lot of the programs that work with CMYK, such as Inkscape, cannot do that and also changes the CMYK values automatically. The second glaring issue is that, according to Pantone, there is no such thing as Pantone 02. However, I do remember that some flags like Luxembourg, Canada and Singapore uses a Pantone shade called Pantone 032, so I picked that. I used http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx to get the Pantone shades. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I just now saw that you responded on your own talk page. What do you mean email changes? Why is it necessary to use inkscape? And why did you just guess a red when there's a CMYK value available? Oreo Priest ^talk 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I emailed the Belgium Government office that established the colors and tried to see if Pantone 02 was a typo. Inkscape is just a vector image program that uses CMYK and other colors (that is what others use to draw). Well, what we try to do is just have one format for the flag colors and that was it (all pantone or all CMYK). Since the CMYK rarely works with flags at all, I stuck with all Pantone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does CMYK not work? Does Pantone give the values in CMYK? (I can't seem to access anything meaningful from the link.) And what is the yellow you used? Thanks for your patience, Oreo Priest ^talk 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Because with any of the programs, you are not allowed to enter in a .5 value (it need to be whole). I used the Pantone Yellow described by Belgium law. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused. You said CMYK rarely works with flags at all, which seems to go beyond the issue with the 8.5. This is presumably why you guessed a red in the Pantone system instead of using the CMYK value, which I still would like it if you could explain. And what does inkscape do in terms of colours? Does it convert everything to RGB? Does the Pantone lookup give you CMYK or RGB or something else? Oreo Priest ^talk 06:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Because when I input CMYK for flags, like I did with Serbia and Bosnia, the colors become very washed out. As I said, the Pantone color Belgium used (Pantone 02) does not exist according to Pantone, so they made up a color. Using the research that I have done, there is a Pantone shade that is used for flags (Pantone 032). There are several governments that made typos with their flags, and Belgium happens to be one of them. Inkscape uses CMYK and RGB (pantone is a copyrighted format for colors, so it cannot be included in Inkscape, but can in other programs). http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx gives you the HTML and it is from the company itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So you get the HTML by viewing the page source after using the colorfinder? I think I finally understand. Thanks for explaining. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan King-Hamilton

I don't see how this article was a copyvio of this. I see very little in common between the two. Are we looking at the same article? Thanks. Rodhullandemu 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the text was copied word for word, but was changed in a few spots. I noticed it a lot in the retirement phase and some of the cases. I asked a few other administrators and they agreed that it was a copyvio. The article can be made again, but just make sure it does not even look remotely like that page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll userfy it & fix it there. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The location does not really matter, just make sure the text does not match. :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; after 32 months editing here, I think I'm just about getting the hang of avoiding copyright problems. Rodhullandemu 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It does take time, but I am not sure what the IP address done, so that is why I am not trying to blame you for anything. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag standards

You and I had a small issue about the Vietnam flag a short time ago. I am in the process of getting a document called "TCVN 2242:1977 Quốc kỳ Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam. Cờ may bằng vải (National flag of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Flag made of textile materials)" from the Vietnamese Government. Once I get this document, I am willing to share this with you. Would email or skype or IRC be the best method to send this to you? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the only disagreement we had (regarding that file) was that you wanted to make the source file harder to read, which IMO is a silly thing to do with a text format. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but since I know we also had some issues about colors in the past with other flags. Anyways, I still want to share you this docucment, once I get it. I am on IRC now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No need. I don't think (?) I've ever questioned the legitimacy of your sources... in fact I think usually it's your disregarding of your own sources (or other legitimate sources you've acknowledged) to appease others without sources that often bothers me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I just been finding a lot more, but many of these will not be put online. The only one I changed in the past 2 weeks or so that has an online source with Pantone is the Rwanda flag (partly uses Pantone, the rest RAL, no RGB colors at all). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the sources are fine. IIRC when I looked at that last flag of Rwanda change it looked like you'd found a great source, and one we definitely needed because we didn't really have one at all before. The thing with "flag of Switzerland" (if that's what you're thinking of), to repeat myself, was more about what flags should be at those 'flag of FOO' main filenames — I think they should all represent actual (tangible, real-world) flag appearances, and new files should be generated for alternate versions ("web" colors, etc.). ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but I do agree that a Pantone version must be present (but Swiss Government told me that using the websafe colors was a must). The US and Bukgaria flag is using RGB colors, but they match the official Pantone shades. I also know the Canadian and Aussie flag also use the RGB demanded by their governments (long before we began talking). It's confusing, but I do pray to get this sorted out very, very soon. As for Rwanada, what I did was I looked for the French term for flag and limited the results to websites that end in .rw. It took a while to get the flag drawn correctly because the actual measurements are wrong and that I also hate the fact that Pantone and RAL were mixed together. Now, about Vietnam, the size of the star is right, but the document I ordered could give us more detail. It is free, but no idea when they will send it. (Sri Lanka also sent me their flag construction sheet, but in my research, most Asian nations use Munsell or CIE Lab for their flags (with the exception of South Korea and the Philippines that use Pantone as a supliment). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian anthem

Thanks for the updates on the article. I might've sounded overbearing at FAC, but expectations there are high. An article should already meet or be really close to the criteria when it's sent there, and those sentences were telling me "not ready yet, not ready yet". Sometimes, it's better to just wait for (more) cleanup.

Thanks also for adding the sourced English version—when sourced translations are not worse than ours, they're generally better to use and easier to verify. It also keeps nationalists, trolls, and others from editing the text to what they think is an exact Russian translation (and making readers say "wait, that can't be right..."). --an odd name 03:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if you knew me or not before this FAC, but if you ever look at my userpage, I pretty much know the whole drill at FAC. The main problem with the text in the article is that I wrote them between 1-4 AM for about four consecutive days. I should never write that late, I guess. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain. :) Take it easy. --an odd name 04:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I just wish that you can work with me step by step so this article has a decent chance. I know an image check was done and all of the technical things were taken care of, but what other things needs to be done with the article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Netherlands

Hi Zach. I saw you uploaded a new version of the Dutch flag, this morning about 6 AM CEST. I do understand it's preferable to have smaller files, but you placed it back the wrong way round! Could you please turn it back the right way? Cheers! nl:Gebruiker:Netraam 8:57, 06 April 2010 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.118.216 (talk)

It was turned the right side up by another user, then I fixed the code this morning,. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it's already quite something you actually own a dutch flag! I'm not very familiar with SVG files, but like all storms this one will be gone soon. nl:Gebruiker:Netraam or 193.152.225.174 (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Flag_of_France.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Flag_of_France.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't see

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Zscout370 and the Commons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was told on skype about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for SVG file

Good day!

I recently saw your SVG work, the Coat of Arms of the Philippines, from the article Philippines. If you don't mind, could you convert File:Seal of UST.png to SVG? For large image preview, you can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/?dt2lnywq2qn.

I look forward to your positive response. Thank you.

--Anyoflores (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Seal of the University of Santo Tomas.svg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thread Deleted for Copyright Infringement INCORRECTLY

I have permission to use Dr. Wood's images and information, and she will be sending Wikipedia an email within 48 hours to tell you of this. Not only are the images on her website available to the public for FAIR USE, but she also has personally given me permission, and will be emailing you very soon to remind you of that. Thanks! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs) Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 07:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)

Fair use of living people is not allowed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Zscout370,

She has also given me personal permission, which you did not address. She said she would be sending the permissions group an email about this within 48 hours to remind them that I have permission to user the information on her website, including photos, documents, and text.

I am going to report you for abusing your moderator powers, and for your unfair censorship of the ONLY 9/11 Researcher to file evidence with the courts.

She is fighting for all of us, and has accomplished more than any other 9/11 researcher in terms of legal efforts to bring about truth and justice.

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez

Deletion review for Judy Wood

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Judy Wood. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Karabinier uploads

Hi, I've noticed that you have been sorting through User:Karabinier uploads recently. These have indeed been bothering me for nearly a year now, so I'm happy that things are improving. He has uploaded a remarkable amount of copyrighted works (his talk page is a definite proof of that) and is otherwise very ignorant in correctly describing his uploads. I've been considering Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations against him, but I haven't found the time to start that or any other action against him, unfortunately. So, I'd be happy if you agreed to take a look at his gallery and delete (or at least nominate for deletion) any problematic images (there should be quite a few of them). Most of his copyvios come from http://pildid.mil.ee/ which are tagged with {{PD-EE-exempt}} – he seems to have believed that cropping an image releases its copyright. As for the insignias – most of these are already available in Commons:Category:Military insignia of Estonia and its subcategories. I'd happily help out with any cleanup which might be necessary (i.e. replacing deleted images) and I'm sorry to be bothering you with this, but it has been annoying me for a very long time. What do you think of this matter? —Quibik (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going through the entire category of images tagged with {{PD-EE-exempt}}. If they were already orphaned, I am deleting them on sight. If they are used and obvious, I will send it to PUF. I sent a few files, but I know now that copyright in Estonia lasts for 70 years. There is a lot of images that can be moved to the Commons, but I will tag those once the bad images get deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ants Laaneots

Hey! Thanks for the warnings you put on my user:talk page. I don't know about other people, but I appreciate you going to the effort. Thanks.

I'm not altogether sure what to do about them.

In general, I wouldn't care. But I see ALL the other pictures of him have disappeared, so I feel some sort of "moral obligation". (I've no real idea why. It might be something to do with an upbringing under the influence of the Methodist Church. But it's probably safer to blame my parents ... )

On the one hand, "Who cares?". BTW: That's meant to be a serious question, not a throw-away line.

Perhaps it would be better worded as: "What are the Costs and Benefits?"

On the other hand, "Why is anyone getting so fussy about it?"

(Spare me the standard waffle - I've read it before, dozens of times.)

I could go on (and on, and on, and on.) But it's probably more useful at this point for you to explain why you think that ALL pictures of Ants Laaneots should be removed from Wikipedia, and what doing so would achieve. (And please, think about your answer, and don't spout mindless policy to me. Remember: The "one size fits all" argument is rarely relevant.)

Looking forward to reading your reply here, or anywhere else you want to make it.

Again, thanks for your warnings, they really are appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You can use http://estonian.estonia.usembassy.gov/uploads/l8/Vr/l8VrvtudrM1h80pBepy4ww/jan144.JPG on Wikipedia because that image will be public domain because it is a work of the US Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the various explanations, and congratulations on both addressing AND solving the problem. Well done! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Belarus/Minsk question

I wonder if you have any thoughts about the discussion of Minsk here? Thanks. Scartol • Tok 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Image query

Zscout, I'm looking for someone with image expertise to settle an issue. What would be the best tag for File:Christmas Puppet Show.jpg? It's a poster from the Soviet Union, made available here by the Library of Congress, which says it was created or published in Moscow between 1925 and 1935. The artist died in 1942. We don't know when it was first published. We have no publication dates apart from when it appeared on the Library of Congress site. The uploader argues that it's in the public domain in the U.S. because 50 years had passed between the artist's death and Russia's entry into the URAA, and he refers to this page to support him. Does that sound right to you? It's important to get the tag right because the article is GA and might be an FAC in the future. If you're busy, by the way, feel free to ignore. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It gets even more complicated because the Russian Federation changed its copyright law in 2008; see Copyright law of the Russian Federation. I've listed the image here for discussion. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it as {{Do not move to Commons}}. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

just getting back

am finding my way back here. check email. hope for more updates soon. Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

tried adding an image to the infobox Antonieto Cabajog but it doesn't seem to work. please check. thanks Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Belarus

Sure, I could help you. Please, describe which issues you would like to tackle in the current article? Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The history is the main issue I want to tackle, but I would like to overhaul the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 12:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lupang Hinirang

Thanks for the list of sample good articles. Perhaps we can make a checklist as guide in improving Lupang Hinirang so other editors can help and push for WP:GA. what do you think? Pinay (talk•email) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea. I got my music program running, so if we need to make recordings, we could. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! More updates soon. Pinay (talk•email) 05:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Francis Escudero

Found the pictures and email/permissions to wikimedia in my files from 2 or so years ago. re-sent these to your email. i couldn't find a file of the receipt from wikimedia though. please check what happened? i will wait for your further instructions. Pinay (talk•email) 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...now i gotta find those other image...Pinay (talk•email) 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the receipt already. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hide the stub

Please give me wikipedia policy that hiding the stub to redirect. Matthew_hk tc 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The football articles? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For all of the football articles except for the one you moved and edited, all were "X plays for Y club." That's it. There was no content to actually have a standalone article, so I just used my editorial judgment for a redirect until a full blown article is made (also cuts down on the possibility of a BLP abuse). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Then i say it is not helpful. Just put to to speedy and tag them to football project, someone will judge and expand them. And lastly, no all your article you hide has insufficient content like you said. Matthew_hk tc 08:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There was maybe one, but the rest were "x is on y team" and that was it. I prefer redirects anyways, it still gives people what they are looking for and are "cheaper" than deletions. Just expand the content is all I ask. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have uploaded a video, put it into the article, and have nominated it for FS at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/File:Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010.ogg. Just FYI. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Spirit School of Tagbilaran

The Diamond Jubilee song was released by Fr. Arnold Zamora to wiki, but it has been removed. please check. thank you. Pinay (talk•email) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

National Anthem of Russia peer review

I figured as much, but I think that the reason why should be clarified in the article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Zamora

Zach, here we go again with the images...when we reviewed the articles. we again see that the images of the covers of the Albums have been removed...these were all released to public domain by AZ himself...please help check what happened to them...thank you sooo much. Pinay (talk•email) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Ming

I notice that you've done a lot of work on flags. I want to let you know that in Talk:Ming_Dynasty#Flag I posted about a flag I found on Baidu Baike, but I can't seem to find much information about it. I would appreciate any work you can do on it. Asoer (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....this is the first I seen of this flag too. I need to ask my Chinese contacts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

The userbox that you deleted was on my user page and it was part of a collection of userboxes meant to gently parody guys who spend too much time editing Wikipedia (like yourself maybe... or maybe even me). The reason you gave for deleting it was that it was "patent nonsense." It certainly wasn't. It might have been in questionable taste, but that doesn't seem to be a criterion for deleting a userbox. (What are the criteria, by the way)? Here are some userboxes that are linked to the Wikipedia:Userboxes article:

porn starThis user has been in pornography.

I am secretly a royalist

Lb	This user's favourite colour is Light Blue.

Pessimist? Nihilist? This user is an Antinatalist.

I'd like to know how those userboxes are any more nonsensical than the one that you deleted.

The article also states the following:

Content restrictions

• All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
  • Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
  • Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.

I have seen a lot worse on many user pages and I just wonder what gives you the right to decide which user boxes are "patent nonsense" and which ones aren't?

I am requesting that you undelete my userbox, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/medium. Not doing so is nothing short of vandalism.

And lighten up, by the way. Antigrandiose (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this and concur with the deletion. Put simply, Wikipedia is a writing project not a social networking site, whatever leeway may exist in any user page policies or norms is usually not going to gain consensus to keep if it's about penis size, no matter how witty a parody it may be. Sorry, guy. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So what's the deal? Was my original complaint legit so you just get someone else to change the reason for the deletion? I hope that you can tell that that section was meant to be a parody of certain user pages, and I hope you would agree that there's a place for parody on Wikipedia userpages, as long as it's parodying something that's germane to Wikipedia. I hope that I'm not just getting ganged-up on here. Don't you guys have anything better to do than to pick on someone who's making a positive contribution to various talk pages and even some articles? Stop being wikithugs, OK? Antigrandiose (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1

Since you were involved in one FAC in the Millennium Park WP:FT this year, I thought you might be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hymnos pro tin Elphtherian.ogg

A tag has been placed on File:Hymnos pro tin Elphtherian.ogg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 04:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

Saw that revert, are you biting newcomers? Haha, just kidding. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 06:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Read Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings and you will get the gist of the issue. Brand new user, coming in and demanding another page move. Similar pattern as other users on that talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting a small change

I am ignorant of the correct means of editing an image file, and anyway the change that I would suggest is in your comment on the file. The file is "File:Ukraine Admiral shoulderboard.svg ",. Instead of "The rank that denotes an admiral in the Navy of the Ukraine.", the comment should read: "The rank that denotes an admiral in the Navy of Ukraine". The rational for the change is discussed inName of Ukraine#Syntax. I leave it up to you if you think it would be worth the trouble to change the file comment.

I can look at National Anthem of Russia, but I cannot promise to be able to improve it.--Fartherred (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, it was no big deal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now done all that I can do for [National Anthem of Russia]. Perhaps I will come back for a fresh look at it after some time has passed. Live long and prosper.--Fartherred (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rene Relampagos

Hello! Your submission of Rene Relampagos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Yugoslavia

What happend? You adviced me, I did so, I was revengfully reverted, you said you´re on it... nothing happend, and the article is still wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You only talked about the coat of arms article, not the flag one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the situation was the same in both situations... Should we make a separate articles for the Kingdom period? FkpCascais (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on just a minute here! Yugoslavia is covered as a single country on Wikipedia, just like Czechoslovakia, and what's the idea just reverting a merge like that without even a hint of discussion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the discussion on the talk pages. Honestly, a lot of the information presented in the articles is all about the Communist era and the article dominates that. I know some flags, like that of East Germany, have been merged over to the main article about the German flag. With the Soviet ones, they all have their own articles. We're not paper so it will not kill us to have an article about the Kingdom of Yugoslavia flag and one about the socialist Yugoslavia flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously none of this is lethal to any of our vital organ systems :), but the point is that its wrong. The Soviet Union/Russia thing does not compare since the latter obviously included a Russian state with its own flag [7] and had a different name to boot. Whether "Soviet Union = Russia" is a bit of touchy question, as far as I've heard. SFR Yugoslavia obviously did not include the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and had an identical name ("Yugoslavia"). The most important point is that we have a single Yugoslavia article that covers both states per Wiki consensus, while the two are basically the "Main articles" for the two periods of history (1918-1943, 1943-1992), etc....

Either way there's a valid argument here. The point is this should be discussed prior to the move. The merge was done by the book, I posted the proposal, waited several days, then merged. Nobody protested for days. Had someone protested I would've naturally reverted myself. All I ask is some courtesy towards my contribs. Will ya revert and wait a while? Please? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Don't listen to old Fkp here - he hates me with a passion & pretty much opposes everything I do wherever and whenever I do it... :P Its gotten so the fellow defines his position on issues as diametrically opposite to mine. I would be flattered were it not for the detrimental effects of this "admiration", such as WP:CANVASSING of this sort. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing done was move the article titles and that was it. Honestly, I still feel the moving of the article title was the rest step since the content has not changed, just what the page is called. The example I use is China; there is at least a major part of the world that still considers one China, even though there are two with distinct histories and two distinct paths. That is what I used to decide to tell the user to just make two articles and expand. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Zscout, the China example also does not hold water. There are two Chinas existing simultaneously. Hardly a situation comparable to the two periods of the history of Yugoslavia.

Yes, I understand the title has been changed - by doing so you split the article in two without discussion, without even a thread, and frankly - without any argument. I dare say you've been led-on to believe this was justified by User:FkpCascais, who essentially fooled you into doing his own "dirty work", as it were. This is quite obviously a classic case of WP:CANVASS on his part. At the very least, bypassing the discussion like this is very unWiki-like. Could you please restore the article titles to their previous state, at least until a proper discussion has taken place? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Then we will see you two back at ANI again and again over this stuff. Myself and other admins are getting tired of this so we have to take actions like this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Take actions? You mean take sides. What a new and exciting way to solve disputes - follow the instructions of the first guy that talks to me. I'm sure nobody will ever hear about the two of us this issue again... :P

Its nonsense Zscout, there isn't a single conceivable reason why these two articles should be separated. I worked on the article for hours trying to improve and better organize coverage of Yugoslavia-related stuff. Then here comes FkpCascais following my contribs from our dispute about the Chetniks and reverts everything. He then goes behind my back, canvasses you about my "evil ways" and talks you into supporting him. And now in the end you just brush aside all argument and say you did what he told you essentially because you felt like we should be "kept quiet". Typical --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I would suggest to expand greatly the Kingdom of Yugoslavia information, because all I kept on seeing, even after you edits, was related to the Communist period. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is your recommendation for the development of the article, I certainly shall do so. However, if you're under the impression this is some sort of communist/left-wing POV nonsense you're opposing, let me assure you - ideology has absolutely anything to do with this. Yugoslavia plainly is covered as a single country on this project, it was simply a socialist country for a lot longer than it was a kingdom (53 vs 23 years), hence all the red.

On a related note, Fkp might've spammed AN/I with his massive nonsense reports, but when I report someone I support every word with diffs [8]. As a scientist if I understand anything I understand the necessity for verifiability. The fact that my fully factual report has been ignored on the grounds of how "tiresome" the whole matter had become due to Fkp's spamming doesn't do you guys from Club Admin any credit.

One thing though, do you intend to restore the name, or do I essentially have to "earn" it beforehand? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, would you unblock Template:Country data Croatia? It sorely needs fixing-up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell me what needs fixing for the template and I can fix it for you. The Country data templates are all autolocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I posted everything on talk beforehand. About my first post? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Give me some time to think about the first post. Now, about the second one, I am not certain how you can modify the existing template to include a change for the NDH/Ustasa period. Even for the same country, different periods are placed in different templates. The example I cite is Japan; there is a country data template for Japan, then a separate one for when Japan was an empire. I think we could create one for the NDH/Ustasa and use that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's probably best. Nobody, including the Croatian government, considers the NDH as a part of the succession of Croatian state entities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Country data Independent State of Croatia created. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a number of errors that remain in Template:Country data Croatia.

• The Ustaše flag should obviously be removed and replaced by the 1939 flag (the one from the Banovina of Croatia)
• The 1944 flag should be added (this one)
• The flag listed as the "1947" flag should be listed as the "1945" flag.

And that pretty much does it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you're thinking about listing these in separate related templates too, that works as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am also linking the related templates. About the change from 1947 to 1945, the book I have "Grb i zastava RH" by Zeljko Heimer (ISBN 9789537534127) stated that a law passed on 18. sijecnja 1947 adopted the current arms and flag of Socialist Croatia. The book has this information, along with technical drawings on page 54. Can you show me why 1945 should be the correct year? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A huge discussion was held on that issue, the flag was indeed instituted in 1945. See the original order on the hoisting of flags from 1945 here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just the flag design was fixed in 1947? If so, I might have a solution for it, but need to see what other templates have done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The order essentially makes it clear that this flag was instituted in 1945. What exactly they did in 1947, I'm not sure, but it might be that they only entered it into the constitution at that time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did everything except the FS Croatia.png image. I decided to use the SVG image at File:Flag of the Federal State of Croatia.svg (but I had to fix it to match your design. The only thing that needs to be done now is just fix the templates, but finding what to actual fix is going to be a pain in the ass. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned that you need to fix the templates, what do you mean?

• I've noticed that the "1939" flag is listed as the "1941" flag - {{flagicon|Croatia|1939}} should produce the flag of the Banovina of Croatia (i.e. the 1939 flag, this one).
• Upon further reading it seems that File:Flag of the Federal State of Croatia.svg was used from 1943 rather than 1944, hence "{{flagicon|Croatia|1943}}"
• It also seems that File:Naval Jack of the Independent State of Croatia.svg was in fact the last naval ensign of the Independent State of Croatia. Its rather confusing, but it seems that File:Naval Ensign of the Independent State of Croatia.svg was used as the naval ensign 1941-1944, and was then replaced by File:Naval Jack of the Independent State of Croatia.svg, which was the naval jack 1944-1945. In other words:
  • 1941-1944 File:Naval Ensign of the Independent State of Croatia.svg was the naval ensign and the File:Naval Jack of the Independent State of Croatia.svg was the naval jack, as per the file names
  • 1944-1945, the two switched roles for some strange über-Croatian reason. :) For those two years the image named as the jack was the ensign, and the image named the ensign was the jack. The funny thing is, the flags are virtually identical :P

Great work btw, thanks for helping out. :) This has been bothering me for weeks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Change the parameters in the actual articles so the templates work correctly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Call me a newb, but Is there a way can I see where they're used? Though I don't think is that big of a problem. People did not use the flagicons much, knowing that they're flawed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, this all has a weird feel, like I'm "ordering" you about or something - "do this, do that". Man, if you this is by any chance getting annoying or something just unblock the thing and I'll fix the snags in a jiff :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not too worried about that. I would have unlocked it to let you edit it, but those templates are locked by default on en.wp. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So have you thought about restoring the titles? As I said, on enWiki Yugoslavia is not covered as two separate states. When and if that happens than a split may be justified, as things stand I just can't see a reason for it. Either way this should at least be properly discussed before its done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not given it much thought (due to personal issues) and I have not spent that much time on here. However, as I look at Yugoslavia, it shows there are two states known under that title and their histories are split. This is like a summary article. I do not believe the titles will be changed back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well since that seems to be your stance, I must say that I am not prepared to accept your unilateral decision on this issue. What I am asking is that you restore the original title while we request comment on this, or an RM is filed on your part. Its not ok to take the quick road out of things if you're busy with personal issues. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been bussy this days so I only saw today this dialogue. I see direktor has been annoying you by wanting to have "his" version. The problem is that direktor is completely oposed by a number of editors, and has showed extreme bad faith on those articles. He even acused the editing on Royal period as Serb nationalism! Resumingly, he personally hates the royal period, ignores it in the article, but even worste, doesn´t allow other users to restore it. Tipical POV with all bad faith acusations on other users included... bah...

I´ll see what needs to be donne with the articles, and I´ll inform you and see if you agree. Thank you, and I apologise to have put you in contact with such a "peculiar" user. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop lying Fkp. I won't waste my time with another of these sort of posts, but practically nothing of the above is actually true. You followed me to that article, having never edited it in your life, and then opposed me because we are engaged in a long-standing dispute on the Draža Mihailović article. That is all. I cannot see any users supporting you other than yourself, but since you feel you need to imagine non-existing support all the time... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@direktor, I was not talking to you. Please refrain from making your unpleasent comments to me on another users page. Btw, speaking of lying, I just found this [9]. See what the document [10] says, and what you added? Please don´t respond to me here, this is Zscout370 talk page, so post only if you have something to say to him. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)