User talk:Zscout370/Archive 8

Archibald Motley, Jr. Page for Deletion

Hi, Zscout. I was checking old edits of mine and noticed that the Archibald Motley page was deleted. After checking the deletion log it seemed it was tagged for copyright violation. I of course followed the link to the "source" website, and lo and behold--there is the entire Wiki article. I wrote that article over a year ago, and this website has taken it without crediting Wikipedia!! I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I am the author of that article and this website, http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/motley.htm, has shamelessly nicked, word for word, my (well, Wikipedia's) article. Please let me know what I can do to protect Wikipedia's ownership of it. Perhaps Wiki needs to contact them and tell them that they absolutely must cite Wiki? In any case, I was very disturbed to see my writing up there and I did not, repeat, did not, steal from that website. I wrote it for Wiki, and it should belong to Wiki. Torie 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we first need to determine which site came first: ours or theirs. Once that is determined, then I will ask the upper staff of Wikipedia to send a GFDL Violation letter to the webhost. But, if it turns out their page came first, then recreate the article without copying them word for word. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was on Wikipedia first--I wrote it. How do you propose determining which came first? The page info for that website says it was last modified Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:25:51 PM, LONG after I created the Wikipedia entry (sometime around April of 2006).

Torie 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I relooked at the OTRS ticket I dealt with, I honest cannot say for sure who came first. I have used several tools that I know of to check the website date and, to be on the safe side, I am going to keep this article deleted. I have no issues if the article is recreated not using text from the above website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to let this be judged by the deletion review people. I am honestly quite surprised that you are so unperturbed by a website stealing from Wikipedia.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Archibald Motley, Jr.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Torie 06:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Torie 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ru_ball.png

This image was removed because of an OTRS request (Ticket#: 2007041910024759) by "the Copyright holder". I drew this image and I want to know who requested the take down as I released this image into the public domain as my own work. Anyone claiming to own Copyright for this image is wrong, if not entirely then this is partly my own intellectual property. The Discussion on the images for deletion page will show that this is a generic design. Also it is a 2d Representation of a 2d Object. I would like details of the OTRS and also a copy of the original mail (with senders details removed if you wish) from "The Copyright holder".
Note I have uploaded the previous image as there was no dispute of Copyright with it. However the 30px Version used in Stubs and userboxes has not updated yet. system problem nothing I can do. Thanks Stabilo boss 11:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, it's on otrs-l at the moment. As I noted to Stabilo boss on my talk page (see archive 33), the review is currently taking place there. Daniel Bryant 12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to get on the mailing list. Anywho, what Daniel did now for protection is fine until we sort it out. In the email we got, we got a patnent letters and registration from the owner, so, pretty much, our hands are tied up right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

bewiki

About mr Zelenko. He is welcome! Let he communicate witth me at kk:User:AlefZet--AlefZet 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sending him an email now. Spasiba. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian flag

Hello. Noticed that you deleted my image of the 35 point vintage leaf design I put on the Flag of Canada site. Is this not a valuable image to show as I have now seen even flags with this leaf design on them? At the very least it shows the chosen heritage leaf image - used by the National men's and women's hockey teams since 2002, often even as the primary front logo for uniform designs since then. That is a very prominent place for a Canadian symbol and I think it should be replicated here. Even Mike Weir uses the exact same heritage leaf in his clothing line logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Likemike1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I think we can do without the image, plus, we have that type of leaf already on the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea moving text to Maple Leaf. I hope you will leave the vintage leaf image (etc.) I put on the site. I know that John Matheson has written about how he designed the leaf on the Canadian flag after the familiar sugar maple leaf, but officially it has never been intended to be the specific official leaf. In fact in 1996 upon choosing the official arboreal emblem for Canada it was specifically pointed out that the generic species of maple (and leaf) is the choice and not any particular maple except for the ones that are native to every one of Canada's provinces[1].

I do not think I can leave the image of the leaf on Wikipedia due to the policies we have over "fair use" images. We have images of maple leaves with various number of points on them and are not fair use. I'll look at your link later, but I removed that statement since it came from a website that I didn't feel was authoritative. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Those images

Hi Zscout. Long time no see :) I noticed you removed a few images from the Polyvios Kossivas article. Considering that I'm the uploader of them all (a long time ago), I was wondering if there's some discussion or review going on that I should participate in, especially to clarify the licence given by the Brazilian Olympic Committee for use of those images (noticing that they were uploaded before May 19, 2005). At the time I discussed it with Burgundavia, although I doubt he'd remember about it this much later on. Cheers, Redux 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a page of all unfree licenses being pasted and reviewed at Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates. I removed the photos, but since I know you have the admin powers, you can delete them at any time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Network logos on David E. Kelley

If these images are not usable under Wikipedia free licensing standards, then why are they usable at their respective Wikipedia pages (e.g., NBC) from whence I linked? Thanks.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is generally considered fair use to show a company logo on the article of the company itself (since some of the articles, like NBC, have a discussion of the logo). However, in Kelly's article, the logo was just showing who he worked for, which can be served by text and not violate our policies. (Plus, by the time I saw the article before my edit, most of the logos linked there were deleted by others, so I was removing red links too). Just because you can use it for one article doesn't mean it can be used for every article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners

Zscout370, would you please look at Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners (in particular the image and the revision history of the template) and offer suggestions. I am too flustered to act calmly at this point. --Iamunknown 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed and locked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Iamunknown 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking that you unlock Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners. I understand the question regarding using the logo, and am not disputing that. However, this should have been discussed with WP:AIR members before you were brought into this matter. The user who created the template is new to the project, and his actions do not reflect the consensus of the Project. If you are unwilling to unlock the template at this time, could you at least remove the "Boeing Airliners" caption from within it? It does not look good within the Infobox Aircraft on the article pages, such as on Boeing 707. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the logo goes back in the article, I will change it back. Anyways, while you asked for this to go infront of AIR members before the things taking place, we already have Foundation policy to remove the logos from the templates and, as you see in several places, Foundation Policy trumps over the stuff Wikiprojects do. Anyways, unlocking template and removing the text. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

THanks for changing it to semi-protection so promptly. I totally understand about Foundation policy trumping projects; I'm not disputing that. My only complaint is that the editor who contacted you did not approach us in any way, or make the project as a whole aware of the problem. While we ought to have recognized the fair use issue with the logo before approving the new editor's work, we also would have made an effort to remove them (assisted by admins who often help the project), once aware of the problem. There are several other similar templates using logos, and I will be removing them promptly, now that I am aware that fair-use is not applicable to these logos. THanks again. - BillCJ 06:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken and your welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a logo on Template:Infobox MD Aircraft, and have removed it. I believe all the others have been fixed, but will keep a watch out for any more. - BillCJ 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (I assume that is Macdonald-Duglass). Anyways, if there is major problems, let me know and I will deal with it as soon as I can. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Langley

Okay, if it really is a copyvio it should be flagged and removed that way. Thanks for explaining. --Steven Fisher 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the image since you may have been within the danger area for 3R. You handled that well. :) --Steven Fisher 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it wasn't even close to 3RR, but thanks for your consideration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

?

Why did you delete the pictures for the naruto episodes, id consider that vandilsim

Because the Foundation has asked for the amount of fair use to be limited and, according to what they told me in private, that lists like Naruto were not complying with the fair use policies set down. Sorry, but it needed to be done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

Are you aware of User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js? Makes work a lot easier.  :-D --Iamunknown 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just added it, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob, it's definitely helpful. --Iamunknown 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD Key

Have you given thought to the fact that so many people are creating pages such as the one you just deleted, that maybe it is of relevance? --142.68.40.44 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if it is popular or not, we cannot host the key on here and the Foundation has asked us to remove it on sight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that the party line is just being towed. Would you mind stepping in Wikipedia:Deletion_review, subheading 09_F9_11... (i'm sure you'll recognize it) and make it known that it won't become undeleted? Thanks. --142.68.40.44 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, rather than the "Foundation" per se, a pretty clear consensus of en-admins have concluded it likely runs afoul of the DMCA. That is, there is a reason Digg did what they are doing. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Digg's doing nothing right now. However, wouldn't the decision regarding the DMCA be left up to WP-OFFICE? Worse comes to worse Wikipedia gets a DMCA notice and it gets taken down. --142.68.40.44 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not Digg, we are not slashdot and it was a decisions made by other admins that we should keep the code off until we speak to someone who knows about the DCMA. I do not want this site to go down over a string of text. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any idea on an ETA for that? 142.68.40.44 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible to ask the fellow admins in irc? --142.68.40.44 04:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Been doing that since 7 PM pacific time zone (and been on IRC for almost 3 hours). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The admins have been all on the same page (no pun intended) for this matter, given previous experience and brief evaluation of the law (even though they are not lawyers per se). WP:OFFICE is not an issue here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cant people be advised to head over to (removed URL) instead? Cyb3r01dX 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that a random string of numbers fell under DMCA. -turrat

The string does something which will circumvent DCMA, so that is why we cannot host it here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt Furey

I tried to view an article I visit time to time and noticed it had been deleted on April 16th by you. The log says it was "due to OTRS complaint (Ticket #2007041610017531)". In viewing Wikipedia:OTRS I am unsure as to howto proceed in looking into why this was deleted, for what reasons and who filed the complaint, for example. Since they're confidential I guess you can't reveal the source of the complaint, but would it be possible to confirm which of the criteria was the source?

My main concern is that there was really no clue as to why, as well as no vote for deletion discussion for input regarding whether or not complaints were accurate, and if an article could be mended as to be accurate. If it's the case of past information in the 'history' being a bad record, would it be possible to create a better article and post that as the first page? Finding the wiki-source for the page which took months of work by a group of Wikipedians would be very valuable for personal records even if Wikipedia can not safely host it. Tyciol 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it simple, the a rep. of the subject made an email to the OTRS mailing list stating about things in the biography. Because of the content of the article, and about how minor a person Mr. Furey is, I went ahead and deleted it outright. Because it is an OTRS action, an AFD wasn't needed at all. As for recation, I have no issues with it, but keep in mind we have a policy on articles about living people and the article must conform to that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi Zach. Hope you're well. Would you mind taking a look at User_talk:Valentinian#Unspecified source for Image:Ostad Elahi 1.jpg? I believe you know more about images than me. Best. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You All

It is kind of funny because it really isn't my birthday. It was on March 9, but thank you all for your kind words and support.

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[2]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friend a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Tony the Marine 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Adopt a User

Hey, Thanks for wanting to help me out. I really would like to figure out how to properly participate in the community. Maybe brush up on formatting, how to join project. Anything you can do to help me, would be great.--Guyver8400 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Well, this is a perfect start, since you found out how to communicate with users, anyways, I need to post a "welcome template" on your userpage so you have some idea of what is needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Culebra Flag.gif

Please do not erase the current licensing data when you are tagging an image with {{nsd}}. Instead, let the closing administrator decide whether the current licensing data is incorrect. Also, be sure to check the upload log of images, as many times they plainly state where the image came from, as in this case. Thank you. Nardman1 02:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, anyways, the license looks good now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia

Thank you for the information. It appears I was wrong about copyright violation then, though I do think the articles mentioned would be better served by links to the site than by block quoting huge amounts of text. Edward321 13:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I frankly agree that is a better solution. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

TBN logo

Thanks for taking care of reducing the image resolution. An admin had just pointed it out to WikiProject_Television_Stations. They've been cracking down on images lately, and we didn't need another image removed. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Need anymore that needs to be reduced? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

None I can think of now, but thank you for offering. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq football club's logo

Why did you remove them? Chaldean 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of our fair use criteria forbids the use of logos for decorative purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So why dont you remove all of the other league's? Why are you targeting Iraq's league? I will revert all of them and when you remove all of the other countrie's logo, then you can remove Iraq's. Good day. Chaldean 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, your edits [[3]] here were not on a template, so what in the world are you talking about? Chaldean 14:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because per our policies as described at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8, the fair use imagery must contribute significantly to the article. Simply using a club's logo in the manner you wish to use them is decorative use, not used for descriptive purposes. Having the logo on the team's page in particular is acceptable. Having the logo listed with every iteration of the team's name is decorative and not acceptable. As to them being removed from other areas, all in due time, all in due time. --Durin 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My work was being coordinated with other users and the bot Gnome. Simply, all images affected first were in the A's. and when it came to the Iraqi super league articles, the bot had problems changing the images, so I cleaned up what the bot left off. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PolandGov

Zscout, on Template:PolandGov, could you replace #REDIRECT [[:Template:No license]] with <noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude>{{no source|day=15|month=May|year=2007}}? Then I'll ask Carnildo to have Orphanbot notify the uploaders (or I'll do it there are not that many). --Iamunknown 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel DiCriscio

It's up on WP:DRV. Since you were responsible for its deletions, I figure you should know. I looked at the history and it's not looking like it actually met any CSD. That the main editor of the article is annoying and adding content that doesn't belong is a reason to block him, not delete the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bro help with Gnome Bot

I saw you reply on Eagle sumthing's page and I thought I'd ask you instead what the problem is on my userpage that the Gnome Bot posted a comment. If you have the time kindly see my talk page for the bot's comments. Berserkerz Crit 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot! Berserkerz Crit 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Army

Hi. I was wondering if there was any special reason that you removed the Abhay IFV image from the Indian Army page? I want to make sure that I wouldn't be making a mistake if I reverted it, since IMO, the picture is relevant and doesn't need to be deleted. Has the image been deleted or something, since I'm not able to find it?? Cheers Sniperz11 13:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted by me for being a non-commercial use only image uploaded after May 2005. Those kind of images are speedy deleted if uploaded after that date. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This Free Use Malarkey

I don't understand this image thing. So is it that the image can be used on the page it is required, but not on my user page? I'm so confused. Cheers none the less. Coolmark18 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, cheers man that was really clear - thanks for your help. I thought something like that was going on but I wasn't sure. Anyway back to my user page, I've changed the way I present the images I added. Can you check it out and see its acceptable, its just links. Cheers, Mark Coolmark18

Template:PolandGov

Hello. I saw that you undeleted {{PolandGov}} and that it is filling up Category:Works of the Polish government, which, as you can see, it a red category. I was going to create the category for you, but before I did, I wanted to make sure that the template was working properly and you did indeed want the images categorized here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I want the category to stay red for a while, since the template could be deleted soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered reblocked

Hello. PalestineRemembered may have violated the terms of his conditional unblock, and has now been reblocked. There is discussion about this at [4]. People are trying to parse the words you gave for the unblocking, so a clarification would be useful. Thanks, nadav 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Rising Sun

Heya,

Are all works by the US Federal Government or Military public domain ? I found [5] this image of an American office getting the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun and think it might highlight an expanded article on the subject. Dowew 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can use the photo. Works by the Federal Government and the US Military are public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

See an/i comments regarding Frank Pais. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw it; I'll see you in IRC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fair Use" Template Issue

Hey there,

Be sure to read my page, User:Palffy, with regards to whether you believe that logo is a violation of "Fair Use". --Palffy 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If your talking about the football logos for the Ukraine, I am not sure if they are covered by the "symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations" since they are a football club. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a good case for Ukrainian football clubs being in one of those categories. They are certainly organizations (see Sports club). --Palffy 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, the problem is that the logos are used in a template where just the team is mentioned in pages, such as league schedules, ranking, etc. The image is welcome to be used on the article on the team but not in the manner you have used in the template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because you reason as well as User:Iamunknown's lies in the fact that non-free images cannot be used in templates (which although I believe to be a bad rule on WP, I have to abide by it, because that was the official policy--and I imagine still is to this day). However, since the image in the template is not a non-free image, the rule against it in templates does not hold true. If you can find some other WP rule that states otherwise, I'm more than willing to follow it, but I have spent a great deal of time myself studying WP rules relating to this instance..=/ --Palffy 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is none, but I am going to ask for a wider opinion to see if the image could be considered free or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Try to place the discussion on one of the visible WP-policy pages so it can be referenced after if needed. --Palffy 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can do a request for comment and place the link both the Ukrainian and Fair Use pages so both sides can be representative. I have used the Ukrainian Law before to find images to upload to Wikipedia, such as for Hero of Ukraine, but I have no idea if football logos would be covered in the same exception law as state decorations are. (unless signs mean logos). Even then, that would still require the image itself to be retagged, which is the reason why this revert changing is taking place at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well a request for comment is fine, but the way I see it is there are two potential issues at hand: 1. whether the club's logo is in fact public domain under the vague Ukrainian copyright law and 2. assuming it is copyrighted, then it cannot be used in templates (which I'm saying would make it no debate on my behalf) and if it isn't, would make the logos acceptable since its irrelevant to [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy.

As for Hero of Ukraine images, I believe those are specifically covered by d. government awards in the copyright law, but I strongly believe that a sports club is considered an organization. So essentially, I feel that perhaps we need some clarity on that specific part of the copyright law. From what I've found so far, either of Template talk:PD-UA-exempt, Talk:Ukraine. Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright, Wikipedia talk:Public domain, or Wikipedia talk:Copyrights are possibilities for such a discussion unless you have some alternative suggestions.. --Palffy 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hero of Ukraine images I uploaded and I thought the same as you; most Soviet states put their national decorations in the public domain (Belarus and Russia do the same). But I am not sure about the logo. The RFC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FC Vorskla Poltava image, which your welcome to post anywhere and make changes to the issue at hand, if needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you made Request for comment on the image page, but again, perhaps this should be a broad discussion so this issue can be tackled once and for all..? --Palffy 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the image issue is sorted out, we have WP policy to sort our the rest. But if you want it cover images under the Ukraine template, your welcome to change it/move it/do whatever you want with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Np. Are you against me inviting people to comment on it such as those that have edited the PD-UA-exempt template? --Palffy 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; the whole Wikipedia Community is invited to take a look and comment at this RFC about this issue, since I know the three of us cannot solve the issue alone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I also made some changes to the Rfc page that hopefully would be ok with you.. --Palffy 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(thumbs up). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not list is at WP:PUI? --Iamunknown 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a source, but I am not sure if that would be the right venue (some folks on IRC told me that too). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The image isn't listed under a non-free license nor is there a disputed source or licensing information. I think if there's any issue, it's with the wording of the Ukrainian copyright law. --Palffy 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually its licensing information is disputed: it is disputed whether the license is free or non-free. --Iamunknown 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

north korea coat of arms

it looks awesome so far - thanks for taking the time to work on this - i'm part of the wiki korea project and i'm sure they'll definitely want to use it. thanks!Icactus 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Military Templates

Hi there. I've been redirected here by Valentinian. He said I coudl get help from you regarding image policy, image uploading and template creation.

Im currently working on articles related with the Portuguese Armed Forces, category Military of Portugal. Is there any way you could tell what should I do to be able to post images of the portuguese military without been in violation of any US law?

From what I could understand, the creation of a template would be the first step. One that somehow allowed me to post photos taken by military or public journalists, which are on the other hand part of the portuguese government, thus on the public domain. I think this meets the two rules of media use and modification.

Thanks in advance, HKFlash

I am going to read the IP rules of Portugal and see if the claim is true. If so, then a template can be made. But I need some time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,In my article Parachute Troops School I've not been using any images from the official portuguese military websites but from a portuguese airborne fansite (www.paraquedistas.com.pt) which in turn has a image gallery. This website is run by 1st Sargeant Filipe Morais and he has authorized me to use/modify the images on wikipedia or anywhere else.

The photos were taken by him. From what I understand I can use the images right away. What should I do in order to do this? HKFlash

If the permission was granted by email, please forward the email to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (without quotes). Once that is done, then we can tag his images on Wikipedia by using a special template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The permission was granted through private message on the forum and not by e-mail and it was written in portuguese. Should I ask the Sarge to send me an e-mail in english expressly authorizing the use?HKFlash

It can be written in Portuguese; but the reason why I wanted at that address is that the email address is the official record keeping of permissions letters and that is more permament than a forum notice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee Nysted

Per the discussion about this at WP:AN/I, I boldly blanked Lee's userpage/talkpage, but left a protected banned message up. Hopefully this is a good middle ground that will satisfy Lee while keeping a record that show's the editor in question is banned. I don't want to WP:WHEEL here, so if you feel it necessary to undo my deletion, so be it. I think there is enough consensus at ANI to support this though, which is why I boldly deleted this page. As Tony Fox (talk · contribs) said at ANI, the pages that led to this are on enough watchlists that I don't think deleting the userpage will hamper any necessary admin activity.--Isotope23 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) just fully deleted the pages (see his justification on WP:AN/I). IMO, this is perfectly acceptable too.--Isotope23 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I blanked the talkpage after I restored them, but I'll read AN/I now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFM

Oh, probably nothing. I wasn't really aware of the bigger situation there since I only really reverted the page once. I'll change my !vote on the RFM. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is nothing to mediate, I delete the RFM. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

About MSNBC logos

Is there any possibility to make them be under fair use? ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just take them out of the gallery tags and add context to the images and they should be fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I even made a change in your favor. :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Polish copyright discussion

At commons. What do you think? Also: here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I commented. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: I don't usually follow replies on other user talk pages; in the future note if you want me to be aware of a reply, please copy it to my talk page. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Grr...I forgot, sorry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Np, I am just being a nitpicker because one of those days somebody may forgot to tell me something important (to me or them).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

About the estonian translation

You send me a message to translate http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasutaja:Boy/Autorikaitse#Eesti_krooni_kasutuse_kohta "About using the Estonian kroon"

To Estonian Bank (November 2005) Question: Which Estonian money and coins image (photos) are using limited rules? I interest to add Estonian money images into wikipedia. In Euro money there is a next note example - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5EUROFR.JPG What kind of note has to be on Estonian money?

Hi,

Thank you to asking about reproducing the bank-note.
Reproducing the Estonian bank-bill are effecting all the same recommends like euro reproducing: 
- depictive bank-note has to be different about the real bank-note although on the bank-note has to be written SPECIMEN. SPECIMEN has to be written diagonally over the reproduce using font Arial or alike the font. Word SPECIMEN length contains about 75% reproducing length  and the word height must be circa 15% of reproduce width and the word must be opaque or in contrast color.
- reproduce of the partition power(?) can't be over the original size (72 dpi)
(point of each inch).

When the condition are done, then you can use the reproduce money in your wikipedia. 

If you have any questions, then i help you pleasantly.

Best wishes,

Ingrid Mitt
Information Expert 
Estonia Bank
E-post: ingrid.mitt@epbe.ee
Estonia pst. 13 Tallinn

Yoosq 6:15, 26 may 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Yoosq. Now that I found out currency is in the public domain, I will revert myself on the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Coronela Flag of the Spanish Tercios with Phillip II.svg

Fantastic, thanks a lot!!! BTW, can you tell me what program are you using to create .svgs? --Maurice27 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Inkscape. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, now I will be occupied the whole afternoon! :D --Maurice27 09:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have fun now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Spain

I've seen on your user page that you are a member of flags of the world and that you have supervised some articles such as the lithuanian and mexican flags (which are featured)...

I would love if you can help me with some tips or indicate me what is good or wrong with the Flag of Spain article.

Cheers, --Maurice27 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I need to check out the licenses of the images used in the article. Then, I will try and see if a construction sheet is made for the Spanish flag. I can work on it, but is getting close to 3 AM in my timezone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Undelete this image

Greetings You deleted this image: "Image:Cnn.svg", I spent time finding a vector image, editing, extracting it and you deleted it without reason. This is a logo, and I believe it should be stored in vector format, thus please reinstate it. Mineralè 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is two copies of the same logo, so I had to choose one of them and delete the other. I'll revisit the issue, but I will most likely not restore it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok second thought, the PNG looked bad and I noticed a gradient. SVG restored and PNG replaced/deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS ticket numbers...

Can you reference ticket numbers and not the URL? Thanks... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

re User:Nandaba Naota

You deleted this user page. Why? Herostratus 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked and it contained not but a fair use image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about Commons

Hi, Zach. I address you as a Commons admin. A template created by me was nominated for deletion back in March. When I logged in today, I was surprised to discover it still nominated, although there have been no comments for two months. How long do they keep such discussions going on? For years? I'd appreciate some tips from your experience. --Ghirla^{-трёп-} 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussions take forever on the Commons; there is a discussion I started around the same time period and it had no comments either. We can restart it or just ask to see what can be done about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

SVG

Do you know how I can convert a PNG image to SVG with Inkscape? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Anthony5429 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I open the PNG file and I trace the PNG file by hand, then save into SVG. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Davenport Flag

Why did you delete "Davenport Flag.gif"?? it is well over 7 yrs old Ctjf83 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you tagged the image with a license saying the flag is over 100 years old. I deleted it for being under a false license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The city is 168 yrs old, so how can you be sure the flag isn't that old, also, if it isn't, what license do i need to use, so the flag can be up? Ctjf83 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The flag of the city was created in 2000[6]. If you decide to use the image from the city, you must upload it with a fair use tag, state the source of the image and the reasoning why the image of the flag is needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

can you help me out more? what is the fair use tag name, and what do i put for reason, other than just as a visual reference related to the city? Ctjf83 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If all the image is going to be used is just to say "hey, here is the flag" with nothing else, I would highly suggest of not uploading. However, if you decide to make the article Flag of Davenport, Iowa, then you can easily upload the flag image. As for the tag, I am not sure quite yet. I will bring others here and see if they can help. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with just saying hey here is the flag for the Davenport page? Many other cities have their flags on their site, so I don't understand what the difference is?? can i use "Non-free symbol" as the license?

I am personally dealing with the flag images, so the others you see now will probably be gone. As for the "Non-free symbol," use that and put in a reasoning why the image should be used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday Zscout! May the fleas from a thousand camels images find refuge in your hair! :) --Durin 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Seems like we share something else other than flags in common! Happy Birthday from another 30/5 arrival :) Grutness...wha? 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The birthday is on May 29th :P Thanks aways; Jack Daniels is great when you turn 21 (which is my age now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He who must not be named?

I wrote the following to CMummert, and he referred me to you (see note on my talk page) so perhaps you could shed some light on the situation:
Could you please explain the edits that you have made to hundreds of pages (including my talk page) to replace the name of... well, if I spell out the name I suppose you will just change it here too, so I will save you the trouble... to replace the name of a certain former editor with "HOTR"? It is obvious that this was all part of something, based on your reference to a single OTRS number (though I had to do a bit of research to find out what OTRS means.) What is the point of all this? 6SJ7 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the user who emailed OTRS asked for this to have done. Based on the evidence given in the OTRS email, and only since 200 instances were needed, the replacement was granted by me. I cannot paste the contents of the email due to the nature of OTRS emails. BTW, OTRS is the mailing system Wikipedia uses to reply to emails sent to Wikipedia in the "Contact us" section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is related to Home on the Range (film), one of Disney's lesser movies. "HOME ON THE RANGE" is a trademark of Disney.[7]--John Nagle 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very amusing. For whatever it's worth, I am no longer seeking an explanation, because I read ZScout's statement about "the nature of OTRS emails" to mean, essentially, "It's a secret." OK, I can respect that. But it does leave us uninformed masses to speculate as we will, about what is really going on, or what might be going on. And given the history of the user in question, the circumstances under which he "left" (if he's left, and I don't mean his ideology), and the swarm of sockpuppets, arbitrations, ANI discussions and other fun stuff that he left in his wake, that speculation potentially covers a lot of ground. Sort of like the wide-open "range" that people were "home on" in that movie, John Nagle. 6SJ7 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have dealt with said user before on many occasions, so I know what you are trying to get at; but under the circumstances provided in the e-mail, I had to made the change. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All the pages that linked to the user or user talk page are done. That seemed to include a lot of WP:ANI pages, so I think the change is done. Let me know if there are more somewhere that need to be changed. CMummert · talk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So peculiar, especially since there is nothing preventing us from reverting to the original version, and of course the fact that they remain archived. --Leifern 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the deleted histories become a problem on OTRS, I will ask for an oversight. But as for the reverting, please please do not revert. People don't come to OTRS for simple stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Riboons

Hi, do you have a list of the barnstar ribbons you have created. Existing lists are partial. I know you created a ribbon for Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png but can't seem to find. -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking my upload log. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request from User talk:Gill P

I was looking into this unblock request. What does "Ticket#: 2007053010015263" mean? That was your block explanation. Can you clarify your reasons for blocking, please? Mangojuice^talk 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was emailed on OTRS (that is what the ticket is for) that brought up concerns of impersonation. Because of it, I blocked the account. I have email from the fellow, talking to him there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Flanagan

Um, huh? Are you at the sydney writers festival? it would be good to see an extended reason rather than a edit summary why how this is deleted? SatuSuro 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject emailed me, via OTRS, saying he doesn't get involved in writers circles or events. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are kidding - you are going to tell me that Richard Flanagan who is at the current Sydney writers fesitval - isnt there - go on! There is a link and a photo. I find that very hard to believe, even more so that hed be the slightest bit interested in his own wikipedia entry. I reckon someones having you on somewehere. SatuSuro 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is what he said in the email, so I just removed it. I can cite the email that he wrote to tell me about this, but less than 100 people Foundation wide can see the emails, so I would suggest to either find a different event or just not repost. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response and advice - WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette thankfully restrain any futher comment from me on the subject SatuSuro 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see above, there are some who are confused about other OTRS stuff I have done on Wikipedia. I can admit it is confusing, but I didn't know this simple change was going to be that strange. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing further at richards article - and have left a note as such - I know about say 10 people who have articles about them on wikipedia - and other articles on deceased people I have known - and if they do indeed have a right to harrass somebody within the foundation about their articles - then the possibility of misuse of that process would leave me nervous, legally and ethically. For instance if Richard claims he dosnt do the 'circuit' why is he at the sydney writers festival? Nah I really feel for you mate - I'd take up wild boar shooting with a water pistol rather than deal with egos of notable people who have articles. SatuSuro 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We get a lot a requests from people and or companies about their artilces on OTRS. Some ask us to make their articles, some ask us to make them go away, others ask us to make minor changes or some bring in the lawyers. If you have seen my deletion log recently, I had to do many of these protections or deletions. Yes, the job is confusing, but it has to be done. Sorry that it made your experience on Wikipedia hard. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NAh dont worry about it and dont apologise - I honestly get weirder stuff just doing the vague random vandal stuff from my weird watchlist - nah if you ever need moral support - maybe there should be an OTRS support group! SatuSuro 04:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is, my friends Jack and Jim. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heheh - no guessing what continent you are located in the vicinity of :) SatuSuro 04:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard. :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ive checked out the rogues gallery and realise two admin friends were on it and there was no sign on their pages that they were on it...well I'll be... SatuSuro 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A. M. Homes

I'm curious about the basis of Ms. Homes objection to the inclusion of her middle name. It would be an exaggeration to say that that information is widely available, but it's also not hard to find if you're looking: on her master's thesis, grant reports, articles about her. And I'm also curiuos about why Wikipedia ought to comply with her request regarding what seems like a non-controversial issue. Is this a legal question or simply a personal preference on her part? --ShelfSkewed Talk 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not legal, it is just personal preference if I read the email right. Anyways, she has the right to make such suggestions to the article and I make them for her. But is she going to control the whole article; no (unless WP:BLP has been violated). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, it seems like a very strange request. We should call her "A. M. Homes", sure, but why omit her legal middle name? Whatever, it's not a big issue, but I hope we wouldn't do the same for a politician with an embarrassing middle name.--Pharos 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If the politician emails us, we would be doing the same thing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

Please leave Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg alone. It is used as evidence in an arbitration case. Fred Bauder 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL presumed

I am starting to clear up the mess made by the bot yesterday, am thinking of the best way to approach it. Should I mark images with the tag uploaded after 1st Jan 2006 as speedy or should I send them to IfD? I will remove the orphan tags of-course. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, tag those after June 1, 2006 with a speedy tag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD I3 or some other tag? - Aksi_great (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD I3. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please comment here. I don't want to make any mistakes this time before I let my bot loose :) Template:GFDL presumed warning tells the users that their image would be deleted only after 7 days, whereas in sending tagging the images as CSD:I3 would not give them sufficient time. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion rationale

Mind explaining how this[8] is a proper speedy deletion reason? The watermark can be removed, and Kasuga has no exclusive right to draw Wikipe-tan. (Quite the opposite in fact, since she is freely licensed.) --tjstrf talk 08:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the the side of her left arm, the name Kasuga appears. This tells me that Kasuga drew this Wikipe-tan image. However, the person who uploaded it tried to claim the work as his own, which is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Kasuga didn't draw that. The uploader, a random guy on 4chan, did the art. If that text says Kasuga at all (I can't actually read it), that'd simply be him crediting Kasuga for the design. --tjstrf talk 08:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....it's very strange he signed Kasuga's name next to the image...since that was pretty my reason for the deletion. The problem now is this; if the work is anon. made, then I personally do not think we can host the image until we know who made it. I don't think 4lolicon was the person who drew it, and since it was on 4chan, the image URL to show who did it is probably dead. I won't restore it now (but if we get more info, come back to me and it could happen). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The artist drew it with the specific intention of being an illustration for the lolicon page, and he agreed to draw it as a free image. I, and probably User:Merovingian, can vouch for that, but I don't know what more confirmation would be possible. If you're worried about sourcing, then how about I reupload it, sans watermark, and write an explanation of the image's source on the page? --tjstrf talk 09:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it's freely licensed (or was it PD?), it should be uploaded to the commons, not Wikipedia. --129.241.215.116 10:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

tjstrf, I need some time to think about it. I might also bring in others to chime in on this. As for the IP, while it should be on the Commons, there is some essential information the Commons need for images that I don't know about yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Author appears to be User:Kohikki. Look at the sig on the sleave rather than the one on the white background.Geni 08:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When I deleted the image, I did not see that. Now, after you told me to look, I have found the text that says Kohikki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also watching the discussion on the Lolicon page. There is still one question about if he can license it the way that he did, but that is something I would need to ask around about. (I am in IRC now, so if you want to jump in there, that is your call). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

copyright status of characters which have had images of them released under the GFDL (or any free lisecence) by the intial author is somewhat tricky. I can't think of any dirrectly applying caselaw. Heck the only character who I can think of that falls under the same situation is Tux. Eh I dunno. I don't think there should be a problem under US law but I really don't know.Geni 09:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is a derivative of Kasuga's images, and can't be licensed under PD. They can only be licensed under CC or GFDL, which both allow the derivative. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing the discussion under User_talk:Kasuga#loli_wikipetan and that if the image is reuploaded, then have them either use CC or GFDL or both. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Kentucky.svg

The image is no longer at Commons, either, and your deletion broke a bunch of links. FCYTravis 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... stupid DB server lag. FCYTravis 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the DB is really a pain right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

north korea coat of arms

sooo.... how's that coat of arms coming? ok ok i won't give you a hard time about it :) thanks again - Icactus 19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I got more elements of the arms done, but as you can see above, there was more pressing work at hand. (btw, off topic, the State Anthem of the DPRK was modified recently. I don't think there will be a PD recording of the music soon, unless someone takes the new notation and makes an MIDI file.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins blanking

Dear Zscout370, would you please explain the blanking of the Hawkins' page for me? I will cease editing the article for the time being. Thank you, --Alienlifeformz 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded via email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Images and Bot

Hey Zscout. Thanks for your offer to help sort out the bot issue. I rolled it back because Betacommand's bot seems to keep adding "disputed status" tags to images providing as a reason the "lack of a rationale" as to why the images constitute fair use. While I know this reasoning applies to a substantial number of images uploaded, where people add images and just say it's fair use, in the case of a DVD cover, our template for DVD covers provides the rationale as to why DVD covers are usable under the fair use provision. Since the bot isn't going to stop and consider that, I had concluded that it was an inappropriate tagging of images, caused by a generalization inherent to a bot's programming. As far as the images I've just reverted, all of them came from Submarino.com.br, which is a Brazilian online store, much like Amazon.com. Those images are divulgation images used to advertise the product (DVD discs). As far as origin, we can list Submarino.com.br, but as far as "lacking a rationale" as to why a DVD cover constitutes fair use, I would assume that adding the appropriate DVD cover template tag to the image's page would be sufficient. Unless I've missed something. I've also been assuming the same for still images used to illustrate tv shows (I uploaded a few of those images ages ago), where the appropriate tag regarding this type of image has been added to the image's description page.
The most complicated part of the process, which I know is necessary, of course, is asking us to list the exact website from which an image came in the case of images uploaded years ago — I've received such requests for images I uploaded in March of 2004. With only a few exceptions, it is difficult to recall, and back then we were not so careful with providing all of the information (even though we were always supposed to...).
I have no problems with an image I've uploaded being deleted if it turns out that it should never have been uploaded. I don't claim to never be wrong in copyright issues. But a sound reasoning would be good. In the cases I rolled back, I had considered that such a reasoning had not been provided; I mean, we have templates applicable to certain specific cases that provide the specific rationale and links regarding such cases as DVD covers, stills and other promotional material exactly so that users don't have to keep rewriting the same basic principle, with varying degrees of clarity. Again, unless I've been missing something. If I have, let me know and I'll push the "delete" button on the images myself.
Thanks again for your generous offer to sort this out friend. It's indeed a problem to keep reverting a bot. Any help is more than appreciated. Cheers, Redux 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On the first issue, the rationale for images are being overhauled and being enforced. The problem we have been getting before March 2007 is that a lot of images, they are either uploaded with no reasoning why this image is fair use. Some of the images you uploaded, they have been placed with generic/boiler plate rationales. These rationales are being deemed to not be sufficient, since we need just cause for each image and each use, instead of a general tag. But, as for the images you upload, the website you mentioned is fine. As long as you state where the images come from, then that should not be a problem (unless we get some kind of take down letter on OTRS).

For the images with no source, well, we can always look at Google and see what happens. Since we both have admin powers, we can see the images and actively look for the images. Then, we can arrange for a undelete once we feel we have a strong enough case.

The last issuse, the templates are being sorted out as I type this message. A lot of the "boiler plate" templates with the same reasonings are either being edited out or deleted outright. A lot of changes are being made Redux, a lot of people are upset, but I just hope this provides some reasoning why the bot does what he does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

You seem to have contacts with BetacommandBot. The owner seems to be gone though. Cauld you have it stopped until we can make standard fair-use rationale templates for some types of non-free images? (album covers on pages about that album etc.) That seems to be the consensus of what we should do at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Tagging_Public_Domain_images_as_needing_fair_use_rationale and User_talk:BetacommandBot. --Apoc2400 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apoc, the reason why the images are getting those rationales is that they are tagged wrong or a previous PD image was later turned into a fair use tag (that is what happened with the Coast Guard flag images). Anyways, because this is an error that cannot be detected by the bot, I will not stop it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Chartered Society of Physiotherapy' page

Hello there. I created the above page with good intent, but made the initial mistake of saving a version of the page with a sentence copied from the organisation's website (http://www.csp.org.uk/director/about/thecsp/history.cfm in this case). This flagged up a copyvio tag, so I followed the instructions and added a hangon tag on the page. I later edited the page so that there was nothing that i hadn't written myself, but another user (Butseriouslyfolks) had already made changes, and so I had to talk to him/her about where the intial copyvio had occurred. After finally convincing him/her that the page was no longer a copyvio, you had by then deleted the page. Please will you restore my last saved version of the page.

Please compare my latest version to the original version that triggered the copyvio. You will see that there is no copied text. The large 'history' section is entirely my own work, and was pasted from my own PhD thesis, with references clearly cited where necessary. Thank you. Davwillev 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a copyright violation still intact. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read my text carefully, I have used information from the original sources and cited them where relevant. The website has used some of the same sources (and not cited them) but is not the copyright holder of the work. Is there any way that I can have a copy of the text that was deleted so that I can edit so it no longer resembles this webpage? Unfortunatley, I do not have a copy of the last version. I assure you that I will only post original text.Davwillev 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Constitution of Belarus

Sure. Can you try to do the same to Warsaw Uprising?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

david hawkins

Thanks for the emergency protect. If you have legal access, see also ticket: 2007060410009308. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have legal access. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HowardJonesWorkingInTheBackroom.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SnaresPhantom.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Reservoirdog.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Reservoirdog.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Spiritualmachines.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Spiritualmachines.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cluebat time

You or me? :) [9] Riana ⁂ 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BSA Color Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BSA Color Logo.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Murder of Rachel Moran

It appeared to me that the discussion regarding this article had no clear consensus. Although you may (or may not) feel that the article is worthy of keeping I don't see where sufficient momentum had tipped the scale one way or the other. The more recent discussions seemed to lean more toward Keep than Delete.

• 7 Delete
• 1 Weak Delete
• 6 Keep

While I recognize that the discussion is not a "vote," it does appear that the discussion was split fairly evenly.

Per WP:DRV I am asking you to please reconsider your decision and change it to "no consensus." Drew30319 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the opinions people gave in the article and I saw no real reason to have the article stay on Wikipedia. It was a murder of a British citizen who was female. Many females get murdered every single year and nothing about the article, or the things placed in the AFD, really brought up the point why she stands out of the many females who get killed every year. Anyways, my decision stands. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point murder is not a common occurance in the uk If the mudrder made a news site then it was sufficently notabel under notability guidleines. Also can i ask what country you are from?--Lucy-marie 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of where I am from, that doesn't change the decision to close the article as delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

700 or 800 a year is a reasonable amount, we don't have articles on all of them. --pgk 19:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That is precisley the point we dont have articles on all of them we on have articles on a notable few which attract media attention.--Lucy-marie 08:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Murder_of_Rachel_Moran. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Drew30319 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Already responded there before you came alone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Dear Zscout370, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-PD COAs?

Hello. I noticed you changed {{PD-Coa}} into a redirect to {{Non-free logo}} (which was {{logo}} back then), arguing that COAs are not automatically in the public domain. So I wanted to ask you, if a certain coat of arms was first designed at least 100 years ago, as many current ones were, wouldn't any current rendering of it be automatically in the public domain, since it does not meet any threshold of originality? --Fibonacci 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I was told in the past, no. While the design can be in the public domain, people can still draw it and claim some copyright on it. However, that also gives us the ability to make another drawing of the coat of arms and make that under a free image. That is what I am exactly doing for the North Korean arms and we can do it for others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But, as User:ALE! said on Commons, "where is the additional artistic value (threshold of originality) of this derivative work?" The deletion of a possibly copyrighted rendition of the Colombian coat of arms is currently being discussed there, and that is how he argues that it must be in the public domain. --Fibonacci 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We're probably coming from different perspectives, but I still believe that even if the object was non-copyrighted, people still can draw it and make it copyrighted. I learned this from when another coat of arms was deleted; that of the Russian Federation some time ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Related query

On a distinct but related note, I've been trying to get images of the coats of arms of some Lithuanian cities that we don't currently have ones for, but no luck so far. If I could find the blazon somewhere I could have a go at making one myself, have you any idea if there is some site that makes a point of listing such things? I'm quickly running out of places to try.

I like the "Return Fire" bit, by the way, one of the best I've seen to date ;-) --Grey Knight ⊖ 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I know there is a site for flags of the various cities for Lithuania, but as for Coat of Arms, I have no idea (at least, English language wise. I am sure there is something in Lithuanian that can be found). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shego pics

What did you do? I can't even revert your vandalism: The pictures won't appear once reverted. I'm going to have to report you if you don't fix this. --=CJK= 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not fixing them. If you saw my edit summaries and not using this "undo" function, you can see what I am trying to get at. There is too many photos in the article and they violation our fair use policy, which I linked in the edit summary. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If there were too many photos before, there are too few (zero) now. And articles have talk pages for a reason: to discuss changes (especially major ones like this) and build consensus. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that what you want to build consensus over, this consensus or vote or whatever you wish to hold, it cannot override Foundation policy. There is one photo there when I left it, which is the lead photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that "too many" according to non-free content criteria 3 (a) means "more than one"? I don't think that's particularly obvious from reading the policy. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The way the images were used, they were used for decoration and had little context to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The images probably were excessive in number and many were non-essential, but that doesn't mean all of them were inappropriate. For example, each of Shego's alter-egos has a distinctly different look from her usual appearance, and it would be helpful to have images to illustrate that difference. — Red XIV ^(talk) 18:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you this 'cause I've been working on Shego's article with those images. EVERY image was there for a reason, complementing each section they were accompaning. I understand what you mean with too many images, but that still doesn't justify what you did. You did not only removed almost ALL images from the page, but also deleted them when they were under fair-use rationale, and not only that, but you also abused authority by blocking the page to prevent anyone to revert what you did.

I'm going to upload the images again, with even better fair-use rationale than before. I don't think I'll use as many as before, but I'm still going to illustrate the article as much as I think it's right. I'm just asking you that, next time you try to do something like what you did, present a discussion on the Talk Page. We can come to a mutual conclusion, avoid editing wars and having to protect the article that way, don't you think?

Well, that's all I got to say. Farewell --Alexlayer 03:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I said before, is yall keep on adding pictures in the article and there is no context in the article. Yall are still not adding in the context for the images and are just purely used for decoration. And, with the WP:FUC policy we have, I have my justification. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree but I find no justification in WP:FUC for your actions. The images I recently updated and used were all under every and each possible criteria of fair use described on that page, and as the images are still online, you can check by yourself.

Decoration? Yes, that's true, but that's only ONE of the reasons for adding the pictures. I told you, I do not allow the inclusion of pictures without reason. Every image was ussed to, as it is described in the image's pages, graphycally show the subject explained in the article, and everyone was.

I wanna ask you politely to remove the protection on the page so the users who care about the article can go back to our work. And again, I'd be grateful if you could plant a discussion before producing major changes like that.

Farewell. --Alexlayer 03:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Can you at least reply? --Alexlayer 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FC Vorskla Poltava image

Sorry, I was not aware that you actually initiated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FC Vorskla Poltava image. There was no indication that the dispute is in process neither at the talk page of the template nor at the image talk page.

While the dispute is in process of resolving, I'd like to call for consistency. It does not make much sense to keep logos in templates for most of Ukrainian soccer teams, and in the same time to insist on removing logos for a few randomly selected teams (such as FC Vorskla Poltava). --Novelbank 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above RFC is going to affect all Ukrainian football templates, but the reason why FC Vorskla Poltava is the main "target" is that it was brought up to the admins (and me). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Phillipine National Anthem?

Any progress on finding a vocal version of the Phillipine National Anthem to put in the Wikipedia site? Inkan1969 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was sent recordings, but none have the vocal version that is officially used today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shego's article

Sorry if it's a bother, but while I'm still waiting for your answer about the things I said about the images in the Talk Page, I'd like you to explain me what do you mean with this: "so the users can make the fair use changes I suggested"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall any suggestion you made for the article. I'll be waiting your answer. Farewell --Alexlayer 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I mainly suggested in the above topic that the images needed more context in the articles. An example I can think of is when you display Shego with another character, pretty much state what is going on during (or after) the image was taken and why it is important. Just having an image, of lets say, Shego and Kim next to each other with no context, that is what I am trying to get at. Honestly, I won't lock the page again since you guys wanted to show improvement and it is kinda hard to do that with the page locked. Also, Shego in different outfits isn't needed at all in the article (maybe with the exception of Ms. Go and that is probably it). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So how about the ones I suggested in the Talk Page? I really think that images like the one of Shego using her powers and at least one of her figthing Kim should be there. --Alexlayer 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it describing the powers she got and how she uses it in battle? If so, I would say it is ok. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you take the time to read about the shego article, but here's what I said: Alexlayer did a fantastic job explaining the pictures, but is this zscout person just going to lock the article again? Can he just lock articles up for no reason like he did before? This picture deleting thing is absolutely ridiculous, who does he answer to? Can zscout just do whatever he wants? What are the rules for you people? --=CJK= 12:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I still have the article on my watch list, but I can assure you that I will not lock it again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal nurse consultant

I see you truncated this article a short time ago, citing OTRS Ticket#: 2007061310004037. I know there has been a troublesome spammer complaining because he can't list his company in the article, which was judged to contravene WP:LINKS. This person was also threatening legal action. Was this the reason for the truncation? If so, was it done only on the basis of empty threats? Phaedrus86 09:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That I cannot say on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So this is being done entirely under wraps - nobody can know why? Phaedrus86 09:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The nature of OTRS work is confidential and we cannot release much details about the email contents. I placed the ticket, which I notice you copied above, but I am having other admins who use OTRS to review the action and see if it was performed right. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will the results of the review be published anywhere? Phaedrus86 09:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Time I left Wikipedia. Phaedrus86 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was a normal deletion, then we would have gone here to review and it would be public. However, since it is dealing with confidential information, the review cannot take place and in public and any results won't be released to the public other than a simple restored or kept deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Phaedrus, having seen both the OTRS complaint and your contributions to that article, I think you may well be right. Indeed, there is some chance that this departure might become involuntary, if my further review of your contributions shows more of the same. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I over-reacted twice to a spammer on the talk page, after a long history of spamming, and they reponded more vituperatively than I. Fine, delete the talk page and censure me. But why delete the article? There was nothing wrong with it, it was backed up with solid citations including some from US universities. The person who complained about the article produced no evidence at all to support their claims. If you do indeed take an unbiased look at my contributions you will see that I took an active role attempting to counter spam and vandalism. Forgive me, but it seems a little ironic that your user page rails against spam, but in this case you appear to be supporting a spammer. Yes, I am leaving, becuase I am just a little outraged at the secretive and high-handed manner in which a perfectly good article was removed. It wasn't even an important article, but it was perfectly good and could have informed a small section of the public. Phaedrus86 08:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We meet again - I would vouch for the above user as being a dedicated and extraordinarily patient editor who has tackled some difficult subject areas - and if he is saying what he is saying - there is something seriously flawed with the OTRS system that needs to be reviewed. Out with the bourbon and coke I would say SatuSuro 08:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing with OTRS is that is where people outside Wikipedia try to contact us. I can't say who contacted us, but the concerns the person raised would had major consequences for the project as a whole. So, I decided to put the article in a way that no organization is mentioned. It wasn't my intention to drive Phaedrus86 from the project, but if no one responded to the email, there would have been no more project for us to contribute to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ahah it suspiciously smells of what radio peking used to have a phrases for in the 1960's - an aspect of american cultural imperialism - which has hit our (Australian) shores - unfortunately - (with my late parents being from United Kingdom - when disney brought the rights to winnie the pooh I concurred with the chinese writers - the cultural enroachment at times has plusses and minuses to put it as politely as possible ) - and in the case of the lost editor - the extraordinary lengths to which litigous and potentially hostile adverserial actions of many american corporate bodies and organisations leaves a lot to be desired and as the late Frank Zappa bless his socks would probably have said of them all they are probably are all out to lunch SatuSuro 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

legal threats from off wiki are more likely in usa than in australia though it is trying to catchup - bah humbug - they probably have something to hide - thats a another way of saying it SatuSuro 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and they are probable are all out to lunch - refers to people who wish to change contents of wikipedia for their own purposes - as Frank Zappa said - jazz isnt dead it just smells that way - the same goes for litigous emailers :| SatuSuro 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say where the emailer came from. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not from Brazil - enjoy - I'm away from all of this now I have vented my annoyance at losing a good editor from the Australian project - cheers SatuSuro 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not happy either that this editor left due to an action I have to carry out. There was no choice; either do the action or all of Wikipedia could be gone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

By request...

I intended to write this as a report on WP:ANI, but since you volunteered...here it is:

I was informed by User:Scorpion prinz that Rizalninoy re-reverted the template that was removed on the Batasang Bayan article, despite the latest developments on Howard's talk page. I would have let this pass, but this has been too much.

First, he claimed to consult a department of the Philippine Commission on Elections for some materials for an election-related article. User:Scorpion prinz refuted this as he has visited COMELEC's office himself (the correct department would have been the Records Division).

Second, he claimed that a Philippine Senator contacted him and said that if other Filipino editors will remove some content, we (i.e. Filipino WP editors) could be sued. The dispute was the removal of unofficial election counts that most of us decided to remove as they were not endorsed by the Commission on Elections and are unencyclopedic. Rizalninoynapoleon contended that because a certain Senator said so, these should not be deleted; he, in fact, opened a poll and left some comments on other user's talk pages (example: User_talk:Pinay06) asking them not only to participate, but also to vote against the removal of this specific content. However, I emailed the Senator's office and they denied that he did send out that email. For references, I included a screencap of that email (with sensitive information blacked out).

Third---this came in only now---he insisted that the Batasang Bayan---which, per the sources, is just an advisory council and not a legislative body; he claims that the author of the book he used said so. I contacted the author himself and the author said that his response was misunderstood. With his permission, the author allowed me to quote the email in full. Despite this, however, Rizalninoynapoleon insisted on reinserting a template that contains links to legislative bodies (of which the Batasang Bayan is not). In retaliation, he reverted the template and even left a personal attack specifically directed to User:Howard the Duck ("you twit") (on which talk page the most recent debate started). He also insisted this on one of the recent CfDs on the template he created, even though the law that was cited (at the Batasang Bayan article) clearly states that the Batasang Bayan is not a proper legislative body (and hence, doesn't properly belong to the template).

I haven't even mentioned the various copyvios that he committed before: he copy-pasted online biographies of some high-profile politicians (for example, Tessie Aquino-Oreta and Prospero Pichay, who both ran for Philippine Senator) which were later speedied; despite warnings, he still continued to post some of these copyvio'ed profiles. (He also removed these user warnings on this page.)

In summary Rizalninoynapoleon appears to be using WP for whatever reasons to push whatever agenda or point of view (I don't know what he's trying to prove by his actions) that he believes, in spite of everything. He just doesn't listen, and in fact ignores each and every single warning and reminder that he receives with regard to his edits. At this point, I don't find any reason to continue reminding him, as he seems to ignore these reminders. I once considered taking further actions (I was thinking of mediation or RfC), but I'm not sure how to proceed, also keeping in mind how he handles reminders and warnings. --- Tito Pao 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would take it to RFC, since what you are dealing with is a content dispute (and ANI refuses to deal with those). I'll look at it more later, since my mind is mush now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thor Hearne

At Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, what is "OTRS Ticket#: 2007061310013198" and how may I view the contents? -- Yellowdesk 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed to help the Republican Party in its efforts to suppress the transfer of factual information about government corruption. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to have Thor Hearnes page directed else where except for political motivations. Ignisdu 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS is the email communication system people outside of Wikipedia use to email us. Someone complained about the article and in my decision as an OTRS user, I decided to redirect the article. To answer Yellowdesk's questions, OTRS emails are private and only those with access can read the emails. No political considerations were made when doing this action, since Democrats also use the system. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

*So let me understand this, you get a mysterious Email from somewhere, you will not disclose the contents, but you claim this validates your action??? The fact that you get Emails from Democrats also proves what?? Do you also take action on Emails from Democrats? Like what?? Sorry, that does not even pass the silly test.

It appears that there are several open questions. The first is what was the specific complaint about the content. Specific, e.g. factual errors, omissions not just and "I don't like it". If there were no specific complaints your action is against the spirit of the Wikipedia.

Second what did you do to check the validity of the complaint. Please point to primary sources which show the specific complaints were valid. Other issues noted belowUser:Eli Rabett

• I don't know if this helps, but I have reviewed the ticket, and looked at Zscout's actions here. The article on Hearne appeared to be what we are now coming to call a coatrack, an article that was actually about something else. Such articles can be POV forks in disguise, or may simply give undue weight to a small part of someone's life - especially where the rest is not especially visible, as appears to be the case here. The solution - a redirect - is sane and practical, and does not preclude discussing Hearne's role within the group, provided it is done in accordance with our policy on living individuals and is properly supported by sources. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think there is a method to rectify the topic complained about so that editing may resume on the article? -- Yellowdesk 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• American Center for Voting Rights is editable. Mark F. "Thor" Hearne is a redirect and will stay that way absent credible evidence that he is notable for something else. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thank you both, JzG / Guy and Zscout370 for the clarifications on this surprising topic. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

*What specific part of Hearne's career is being neglected. This is a person who has been very prominent in the discussion about voting law in the US. Much of the text comes from his bio at his law firm, which was found at the top of a simple Google search http://www.lathropgage.com/people/detail.aspx?attorney=1584

A lot of this stuff in the Wiki bio has a "citation" needed in the last edit before you started to redirect the page. I just gave you one. What is missing in his law firm bio is his connection to the redirect page American Center for Voting Rights, information which he has only recently edited out of his law firm bio. BTW, there is a picture on that page also.

Since Hearne has actively tried to eliminate all references to his involvement with ACVR a further question arises as to whether the letter of complaint came from his law firm or from him and if it did, if any actions were threatened? User:Eli Rabett

I am not allowed to say. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you allowed to say why you are not allowed to say? Was it because legal action was threatened? If so, what actions is the Wikipedia taking? User:Eli Rabett

All I can say is that an email was sent about the article by someone and based on the email, this course of action was taken. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fellow OTRS volunteer. I just checked the content of the ticket. The ticket is in order and the article was developing into a political coatrack. Redirecting this to another, more suitable, article was a reasonable way to resolve this problem. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As another OTRS volunteer, I would have done the exact same thing if I was the one answering that ticket. As far as I am concerned, Zscout370 has made the correct decision in his actions here. Daniel 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

For those who are reading all kinds of wild stuff into this (yes, I've read Rabett's blog), I'll just say a few words about OTRS volunteers, who we are and what we do.

Wikipedia gets quite a lot of email from people who have a problem with an article, and it's our self-selected job to handle it. Usually when we get an email, it's because there really is something wrong with an article. It's not a matter of people saying "do stuff or we'll sue", because if it ever got to that level we'd have screwed up and the Foundation would be handling it (commonly known as Wikipedia:Office). We're ordinary editors and administrators who try to fix problems. If you're dissatisfied with the way we perform our edits or use our administrative powers, we're approachable and will fix a problem if we screw up. If you can't get agreement from us that we did screw up, you can use the normal dispute resolution procedure, up to and including Arbitration. We don't make an edit that we wouldn't do anyway, with due regard to the biographies of living persons policy and under all other relevant policies of the community. We're not special and we don't carry a badge. But we do ask you to please make allowances for the fact that we can't talk about emails we receive, which are confidential. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go back and follow this, it all starts with the fact that the redirection was done with no stated reason in the discussion about the article. It's not that there was or was not agreement that you had or had not messed up. It was that it was pulling teeth to find out what happened.

Beyond that there are overarching issues. If a user makes an edit it is out in the open. He or she has to defend it. Here we have a back door, write a letter to OTRS and stamp it confidential. Now I agree, to some extent one has to trust the OTRS volunteers and those with editor privileges but they in turn have a duty to a. investigate thoroughly and b. make their actions as transparent as possible to other users. This is particularly so because there have been reports that people from Hearne's firm had been altering his Wikipedia entry.

Then we have the question of whether Hearne should have his own entry. Given his activities (see the bio at his law firm, why not. We see entries for Ken Mehlman, Hans von Spakovsky, etc. Why are these entries not coatracks? Why are they not redirected? [User: Eli Rabett]

He is described in the St. Louis Post Dispatch as the leading Republican voting rights lawyer, counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaign and to the Governor of his state. Hardly non-notable. Similar politically motivated editing/censorship of the article on this lawyer in the recent past has brought Wikipedia into disrepute. At www.Slate.com [10]there was a recent discussion of the editing of Wikipedia to remove reference to this organization in the article about the Hearne. See "Implausible Deniability. The Internet foils fudging by three "voter fraud" warriors." by Richard L. Hasen Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 5:31 PM ET article. According to [11], persons from his law firm have been editing Wikipedia to remove information about American Center for Voting Rights from his web page. Then it was restored [12] then it was removed again [13] by someone at an IP address that was said to be from his law firm per [14]. The preceding information is non-libellous , fully sourced, and in full accord with WP:BLP. He has also been written up in the St. Louis Post Dispatch inline edition at [15] . Just saying "Its secret" is not very convincing that redirect was in the best interest of the project. Edison 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I seen the blog posts, including from the Daily Kos, about the editing by the IP address. What the IP address did and what I did are two completely different things. You already had several OTRS members come by the talk page and said my actions were correct. If you still feel that "it is still not right," there are others with access you can speak to. However, there is a lot of things I cannot mention due to the rules OTRS has put on all people who have access to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the request is secret, it is pretty hard for me to prove that there was anything wrong with your handling of it. But the previously noted conflict of interest editing by persons in the subjects law form, and removal of sourced information for political purposes, makes subsequent secret emails followed by removal of sourced info from Wikipedia look like more of the same. The article on OTRS says " Most frequently, such edits involve removal of vandalism or removal of unsourced derogatory assertions. Less frequently, OTRS personnel handle copyright infringement complaints using one of the standard processes, or delete personal information from article histories." Hard to find any of that in the article as it existed pre-redirect. If, hypothetically, the subject of an article had threatened dire consequences because of defamatory and unsubstantiated material in a bio article, the more standard response would be to stub out anything which violated WP:BLP. References show the man to be a prominent and influential lawyer, satisfying WP:BIO, exclusive of the particular voting rights issues, and normally articles are not eliminated by a protected redirect just on the subject's say-so. Edison 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And each article and each case is different, so while most OTRS users would like to stub stuff, in the article, much of the information about the subject is already in the main article of the organization he founded. I believe the redirect was alright. But, it seems like we are both beating a dead horse since there is pretty much nothing else to discuss about the issue. The action was done, reviewed by OTRS people and endorsed. I seen the IP edits, but I don't have the ability to perform a "checkuser" to see where it came from, so I don't know if the subject or his lawfirm are doing the IP edits. But, the page is in a position that neither the IP or anyone else can edit the article (especially now). If you still have issues, kick the issue to WP:OTRS or to WP:DRV, but I don't think you will get much traction there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark "Thor" Fernlund Hearne, II

Someone seems to be doing a "workaround" on this, using Mark "Thor" Fernlund Hearne, II. I would assume that whatever rational applies to the original page also applies here... While I (in my ignorance) disagree with the removal of the original, I also dislike such "guerrilla warfare". I reverted the text back to a redirect and then eliminated the double-redirect. I suspect an admin will need to lock it. Studerby 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I am an administrator, I can do that for you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sint Maarten flag large.png

How do I delete this image? i.e., what template do I use? Thanks. —MC 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it. If the image is on the Commons with the same name, you can use {{ncd}}. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant it has been superseded by Image:Flag of Sint Maarten.svg. —MC 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't escape =P

Even jumping off IRC cliffs won't save you, Zscout =D *huggles* - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Translations

• мне хотелось бы, чтобы вы были здесь, на AnimeExpo
• мне вас не хватает на AnimeExpo

MaxSem 11:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Spasibo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark F. "Thor" Hearne

Why the protected re-direct to American Center for Voting Rights?? Is someone trying to make the article on "Thor" Hearne disappear? Kgrr 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• See the discussion at User_talk:Zscout370#Thor_Hearne. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned Images

Thanks for your contribution at Tarkan debut album Yine Sensiz - but I dont understand why you wanted to orphan the images. If it was a "size" issue I have had help from Wikipedian Eagle 101 and they are all now resized to standard. However, the first image was already to standard - so I am reverting back. Could you please clarify your reasoning behind your edit? Thanks again in advance. Deff6 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the display of the images of the cover do not bring significance to the article. I have worked with Eagle 101 myself on various copyright issues myself, so he should know who I am. Anyways, unless there is something special about the cover, I think it should excluded from the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Japan, and the larger issue of Template:Infobox National flag

Hey Zscout370, what's up with your reverting of my edits to Flag of Japan? I certainly don't want to get into an edit war, but you seem to have totally ignored my suggestion that, if you think 3 flags in the infobox is "way too huge", you bring that up for discussion at Template talk:Infobox National flag. That template, used by many flag pages now, has provisions for up to 5 versions of the national flag. So this effects way more than just the Flag of Japan article, and is better discussed in the context of that template, not individual flag pages.

As you know, some countries have that many versions of their national flag. Here's the logic of the infobox: Since they are all versions of the national flag, they should all be listed under "Flag of (country)". In other words, to take an example, the civil ensign of Israel is just as much a national flag of Israel as is the one flying over that county's capitol. To be complete, the Flag of Israel article should cover both flags, and the infobox should allow them to be easily compared. I'm working towards making this possible by changing the template, and making edits to the necessary pages.

So please stop un-doing my work in a piecemeal fashion, and, if you have constructive criticism or edits to make, direct them towards the template. OK? --ScottMainwaring 08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox National flag. I'll move my comments accordingly. --ScottMainwaring 08:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the naval ensign and army flag covered in another section. Infoboxes for flags are a pretty new idea, since until you and Anna came along, it was pretty much me and a few others working not only on that box and on flag articles itself. However, what my concern is just a infobox bloat that will just affect this article. On the Japanese flag article, when you use the infobox with all three flags, then things in the design and other sections will be pushed down. It would be very strange to have an SVG image of the Construction sheet of the Japanese flag pushed to lower sections due to the infobox. About the comments I left at the template page, I believe the focus on the Flag of County X articles should feature mostly about the national flag. There is room to discuss about other flags, as I have at Flag of Lithuania, Flag of Belarus and other flag articles that reached Featured Status. Though, I think the general problem is the edits you and I do, we just seem to want to make flag articles differently. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Japan case, couldn't the problem with the construction sheet being out of position be dealt with by putting it on the left side of the page, away from the infobox?

As for your general point, I think you hit the nail on the head. You and I have differing views as to what the term national flag means. Isn't this best settled by getting some discussion going within WP:HV or something like that? --ScottMainwaring 08:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems covering the other flags, I have much expansion plans for the article. However, I want the focus of the Flag of Country X to be on the national flag itself; the history, the construction, the protocol/respect, controversy, derivatives of the flag (with Japan, I can easily think of a few examples for non-military use). So, when it comes to the infobox, lets focus on just the national flag (not ensigns (unless it happens to be both)). I think the only other case I could think of is the state flag, but those are pretty much being "phased out." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in gnome week

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello Zscout370/Archive 8 you are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! --Sir James Paul 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit message

Orphaned Images 2

What do you mean why were they changed? They havent been changed - only resized. Those images are the right size now (they were sized down) and they have a fair use rationale. I don'tunderstand what your argument is with those album covers being on that page. Madonna's albums have their album covers. I am sure you dont have anything personal against Tarkan, you would be ed;t;ng in such a petty way. I wont revert - just please clarify why you have seemingly singled out this page? Under your reasoning no article on Wikipedia relevant to an album should have its cover on there. I hpe youll help to clear this up for me as I am somewhat confused. Thanks for your time. Deff6 04:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against Tarkan; the issue that I have is the following. I understand that you shrunk the images down, that is good. But what was the albums changed from the first release to the second? Did the artist hate the old cover or was it banned for some reason. That is what I am getting at. The person who pointed out the page to me was Eagle_101, the same one who was helping you before. I just want some discussion about the covers in the article before they come back in. There is a lot of articles getting edited by me, Eagle and others, so your article on Tarkan isn't the first nor the last I edit. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The article explains it. The first cover is the cassette versiob released in 92 - the second cover is the CD version released with 3 new mixes in 1993. So the reason you orphaned BOTH was because you want debate on why there should be two? It is an alternate cover per the reasons I've just given. Deff6 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you can add them back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Lewis

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Flag of Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MRM 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone. I can't believe that not only Wikipedia, but my boys at FOTW were hit by the hoax. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bride has massive Wig out

You recently mucked up a template at said article, and started a second AfD discussion here. You may wish to view the real discussion Here. I'll try to merge the histories and comments, but you may be interested nonetheless. Cheers, WilyD 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was working with the nominator and just felt a bit frustrated (at 3 am). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I even fucked up my first attempt at merging the histories a bit. Cheers, WilyD 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chief of Defence staff flag (Belarus)

Hmm... I checked my records and concluded that my entry must have been a mistake from the very beginning. Thanks anyway! --Camptown 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some other military flags that FOTW doesn't have but other websites have, so I can see what I can physically do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of sadr.svg

You're issue should probably head to the Wikimedia Commons, since that is where the change needs to occur. I started the discussion for you at Commons:Village_pump#SADR_vs_Western_Sahara. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - wikima

Image:WWDBarnstar.svg

You deleted File:WWDBarnstar.svg as per CSD G10. This was incorrect. If you'd bother to read the content on the page that used the image, you would have seen that it was humor -- not something we should be allergic to. It was well received by the recipient who followed up on my user page.

Sj undeleted a series of articles, including Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool. An editor accused him of going on a "wheel warring undeletionist spree." In fact, he undeleted out of process deletions once and there was no wheel war. I was being sarcastic, making a joke, and honestly thanking him for undeleting the article while asking for the text of the article to posted to my page since it was subsequently (and incorrectly, IMHO, deleted again under CSD G1. It was not an attack page or a WP:BLP violation and did not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G10.

As far as I'm concerned, the joke has been made so I'm happy to keep the image deleted. In fact, I had planned to ask for deletion myself eventually. But even if a deletion was warranted immediately in this case, your reasoning was incorrect. Please check a little more carefully next time. mako (talk•contribs) 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did check and it was brought to my attention it was used for wheel-warring, so that is why I used G10. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant! was incorrect about the purpose and this was clear from context. I know because I created it and am the only person who ever used it. I find it slightly humorous that an image that existed to make a joke about a series of deleted humor articles is summarily deleted. Thankfully, ironic humor is still permitted in Wikipedia. ;) mako (talk•contribs) 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know humor is still allowed on Wikipedia, I used it and I am sure Radiant! used it a lot. But, awarding someone a barnstar for deletion or restoration of pages, even while not wheel warring as Radiant! uses it, I think it is still bad form. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say it was in good form (although I believe it is, that's not something I think is worth debating at this point). I said it was quite obviously not a personal attack or a WP:BLP issue and did not qualify under CSD G10. mako (talk•contribs)

The only thing I found about inflamation is T1, so I used the closest thing I can think of. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Mako, there actually was a wheel warring spree. Check Sj's logs, or the recent WP:ANI archives. There are several people who are seriously questioning Sj's judgment capabilities. >Radiant< 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I saw, there was a set of articles that were deleted incorrectly or out of process (that's IMHO, you're welcome to disagree) that were undeleted. They were re-deleted by someone else and not restored. Restoring deleted content does not constitute a "wheel warring undeletionist spree" and throwing the term around is not helpful. I was being facetious and sarcastic to try and point this fact out. Apparently it didn't work. In any case, I'm happy to just let this lay as I really don't think it matters at this point. mako (talk•contribs) 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg referencing Gnome bot

I noticed you changed Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg to reference Gnome bot. What about images replaced by others? Should I use a different image to preserve layout in that case? -- Paddu 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Most other administrators just remove the image outright; this was specifically made for GnomeBot. I suggest to leave the image alone, since it took a lot of talking with users to get this exact wording in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do when I want to preserve the layout, but still leave an explanation that a non-free image was removed (which isn't possible by substituting some example image)? e.g. [16].

Note that the image description page itself doesn't specifically mention Gnome bot. Also note that it is entirely possible that in future that job is taken over from Gnome bot by some other bot or shared between multiple bots. How about something like "probably by a bot" instead of "by Gnome bot"? -- Paddu 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Para)military insignia

Hi Zach. I can see that you've taken part in a few debates about military insignia so I'd like to hear your view on a related issue. The Occupation of Denmark article is short of images and since the Danish Wikipedians are getting more and more confused about the Danish copyright law regarding old photographs, I was thinking about staying clear of that one and to take a photo of one of the armbands identifying the holder as a member of the Danish Resistance during the fighting in 1945. Trouble is, is this even allowed under Wikipedia policies, including "fair use" is I take the picture myself? You can see an image of a similar insignia here (bottom). I've never been able to find out who designed the actual armbands, but they were produced clandestinely by members of the Danish Army Intelligence around 1940 without the knowledge of the Danish government, but with the intention that soldiers taking part in a future anti-German uprising should be covered by the Geneva Convention. The plan was to make a national uprising as soon as Allied forces approached Denmark, but the Germans disarmed the Danish army before this could take place (1943). So in any case, these armbands were never officially registered anywhere as insignias of Denmark, but they "conveniently" found their way into the hands of the Danish Resistance which used them during the skirmishes in Denmark on 5 May 1945 and probably a few days or weeks longer. They have never been used since and were never officially registered. If it is necessary to add more originality, I can place the armband on top of e.g. a newspaper from the liberation days when I take the photo, or make a setup of a number of effects from the occupation years, but I'm not completely sure about that idea either as some of these things will be copyright in themselves, but I'm not sure what the status of a setup of say different 5 things would be. Danish law doesn't seem to have considered issues like this. I look forward to hearing your opinion. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...about how long does Danish copyright last for works of unknown authors? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is only my guess, but checking the law again, I presume § 63, 2 applies making it 70 years [17] but that paragraph seems to be written with written texts in mind. EU law is a total mess in this regard. Never mind, I guess Wikipedia will have to be the only lexicon available in Denmark without such an illustration. Btw, it was actually my intention to ignore both Commons and the Danish Wikipedia and use an image under U.S. law. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

With the EU harmonization, a lot of things we had before are going to be deleted. It sucks, but we only have a few years left (it has been 62 years since WWII ended). But, in this case, this is what fair use is for, so yeah, I believe it passes the fair use test. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Danish law was a lot nicer before Mickey Mouse messed it up, and then the U.S. screwed up its law using the EU law as leverage. Does your post mean that I can take a photo myself and still use the "fair use" license? Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what would be most appropriate under fair use rules. Taking a photo of the armband itself or e.g. placed on top of a newspaper with the "Denmark Free Again" headline ? Valentinian ^{T / C}

That should work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper is still copyrighted, of course, but as I own a copy of such a newspaper, that would be my preferred image. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I forgot to thank you for the advice. It is a shame the law is so tricky, as I also own a copy of a patriotic song book from a song festival (anti-occupation national gatherings), a pin identifying the owner as pro-monarchy (=anti-Nazi) and a few other items. I guess things will get easier in around 10 years or so. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also admit that some of these new rules are strange. Honestly, if I had the keys to the kingdom, I would personally allow CC-ND images, so maybe images from, lets say, Eastern Europe countries would still be on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only are they strange but combining American and European law is like mixing oil and water (or fire and water). But why do you mention Eastern Europe in this respect? Is it the Polish images? In the Danish case, the "modification clause" sounds incredibly innocent but since people believe that you're asking them for permission to break the criminal code, anybody asked will automatically turn down requests containing this caveat just to be on the safe side. Which in turn is why Wikipedia throws out an untold number of European press images where the photographer has already been paid off (a lot of images from the Danish Parliament jump to mind). At the same time, we Europeans have to see Commons full of a lot of U.S. images that are probably copyrighted on our side of the Atlantic. Forgive me, I'm ranting, but I am just so tired of the current situation. Wikipedia needs to pay someone that actually works professionally with international copyright law to write some guidelines. 1000 persons trying to guess and interpret international law is no substitution. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We had a lawyer, Brad Patrick, but is gone now. Honestly, I don't mind you ranting at all, but even if we get that lawyer, the people who actually run us will use that freedomdefined website and pretty much anything that isn't "free" there will automatically be unfree here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the question remains why Wikipedia even has fair use images in the first place. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to tell that should Wikipedia ever be released on a DVD in the U.S., some lawyer is going to sue the Foundation into bankruptcy for whatever abused image he / she can find somewhere on this project. The number of hungry lawyers is simply too big and whoever does it will get a lot of free press doing it. The German approach (no fair use) is simpler but I'm still fed up with seeing German images all over the Commons that are copyrighted outside of Germany, while the Germans try to enforce German law also for other European countries. When Rtc listed a Danish template for deletion, I deliberately avoided reporting it to the Danish Wikipedia's Village Pump since I was completely fed up. A Swede reported it instead - and the reaction from everybody was as I expected "oh God, not again. We're fed up with this." The conclusion was that people decided to more or less avoid Commons for the time being and see what way the wind blows, and people were actually debating how actively uploads to Commons should be discouraged. I'm currently uploading some heraldic material, and it is only because I'm too lazy to upload the images to both the Danish and English Wikipedias that I still upload to the Commons, but my enjoyment of that project has decreased by no small amount. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a Commons admin, yes, we are seeing a lot of those templates being considered for deletion. With the exception of a few, most of the templates are being kept because of sheer voting and also to rebel against some of the things users have done on there. I do not know the Germans feel empowered, since I took beating heads and punching balls to delete copyvios whole doing work for the Foundation in OTRS. I am personally getting to the point where I am about to just take a break from it all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I had no right to get you upset. Terribly sorry. But again: some firmer guidelines would be nice. It is the vagueness that is the root of the problem. Moving to something more positive: when I get a bit further with coat of arms of Denmark, I'd appreciate a little input about how best to improve this article. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not upset at you, so don't feel bad. I have some major complaints with Wikipedia that I have spoken about many times, including here, my blog, IRC and even my IRL friends. I'll see what I can suggest for the article you are writing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people have been feeling this way lately. Unfortunately, I don't have a magical solution. Thanks in advance for any input regarding my favourite article. Btw, I've always considered you one of the people on this project that were easy to respect. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And a lot of people I know are quitting too. I don't want to do it just quite yet, but I have some loose ends to tie up. While I thank you for your kind words, a lot of the people that I respect and bow down to are leaving and I sadly think we might be some of the best people left. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This was a merry message (Shakespeare: Henry V). Seriously, the reason I still stick around here isn't because of the work climate but because Wikipedia is so high on the list of any Google search that I feel it to be it in the interest of my country - which I truly love - that it be treated fairly in material that so many people will see. I don't mind including the bad sides but the good need to be included as well, and you have no idea how much nonsense about Denmark that was present around here before I took out the chainsaw. For my part, I'd like to see anon accounts terminated for good. I'm tired of reverting the same brainless kiddie pranks from the same articles. The Danish Wiki made a good decision in this regard: all Danish public schools use their own internet provider, and the Danish Wikipedia simply locked it out en masse. The Danish admins are few in number and they didn't want to waste more work. Valentinian ^{T / C} 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If I knew another language well, I would have just moved to a different language Wikipedia and edited there. I made an account on ja.wikipedia so I can draw for them. I think one of my buddies is also on the Danish Wikipedia, so I would need to see. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Danes banned one problematic user, I can't really remember any "bad apples" among the regulars there. Most of them are very nice (although a little too socialist for my taste) but the project is very far behind - notably because many Danes edit here instead and because of our copyright law, which people interpret harder than necessary. The Danish language has a relatively easy grammar, it is only the pronounciation that is murder for foreigners. ;) For my part, if I quit the English Wikipedia I might move on to the Danish one, but another option was buying a camera and focussing on taking photos of important paintings from Danish history where this is possible. I never got around to setting up a certain website, but when I do, it would be kinda fun to include a small image depository of historical images for others to use in school projects etc. Then again, I haven't completely given up hope to have the Danish copyright law changed to include something similar to the U.S. PD-art. Or I might move on to Citizendium once I've completed university. Dunno. Valentinian ^{T / C} 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can stick around for a little bit, I think I can present another option that you could think about. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Valentinian ^{T / C} 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the clock. It is 5 AM Danish time, so I'll go to bed now. You're also always welcome to drop me a mail. The link is activated. Valentinian ^{T / C} 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE

{{helpme}} Joe Momma93: Game On 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use helpmes for these types of questions. People have explained to you earlier that the subject is not notable. Miranda 01:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When I looked at the article, I noticed it mostly was an advertisement and didn't state why the guy is notable, other than being on local TV. I also deleted the image too for violating policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

TomitakePrincess unblock request

I'm inclined to give the user another chance -- an indef block at first is a bit harsh. Do you mind if I unblock her and monitor her activity? A further infraction can result in a longer block, of course. Let me know on my talk page, please. Cheers. -- Merope 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops I went to the wrong admin, I unblocked him meanwhile. I think what he did was very wrong, but that he acted in good (but ill-advised) faith. I just hope we won't regret it :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys got the right admin; however I just felt all the account was doing is spamming a website and continues to ignore it because it happens to be the first and only English site of an anime series. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a detail, they aren't the only Higurashi website out there, despite the spammers claim. And he/she is back at it, arguing away and launching into tirades. :( Kyaa the Catlord 10:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel another block is needed, then just go ahead and do it. If my earlier block didn't see to get a wakeup call, then I am not sure what will. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Zscout370, it turns out you were absolutely right on this one. I should not have cut them as much slack as I did & that decision was a n error on my part; one I got burned for making. I'd like to apologise for letting this go on too long - Alison ☺ 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A favor

I was told by a little bird that you're going to Anime Expo... If you can take some pictures about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and send them to be I'd owe you a big one ;_; - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Reservoirdog.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Reservoirdog.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Choate page

I cannot fully express how counterproductive it was to delete the Choate wikipedia page. As per wikipedia policy, if a page is in violation of copyright law, the best course of action would be to flag it, or at most delete anything in the article that violates copyright. Deleting the entire page makes for a whole new pile of effort for others (uploading new templates, etc.) Do you have any of the information you deleted anywhere on your hard drive? I'm not able to view any of it since it was wholesale deleted, and I am loath to have to re-write it all. Apologies for the curtness; it's just a little frustrating. Let me know if you can help. Mjl0509 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The copyvios were present in many copies of the article, so that was the only course of action that I have. Plus, flagging articles that are copyvios is being discouraged; we were told to delete on sight by Jimbo Wales. However, I and other administrators have access with the deleted reversions, so I can readd templates and all of that stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi: Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate that, and if that's what the Man said, that's fine, but I don't see the point. Why not delete everything that is infringing on copyright, then ask people to clean the article up? I didn't mean to imply there was some kind of bias here on your part -- that certainly wasn't my intention -- and I appreciate your bring this to people's attention, since a lot of the prep school pages are inexcusably poorly written and often copy entire paragraphs off of the schools' websites. Thanks for giving us a hand putting it back together. Much appreciated. Mjl0509 09:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I can still see why yall are confused; each copyvio situation is handled differently. If it is an image, it is a delete (or revert). Some of it is just reverted (unless emails to Wikipedia require further action) and if most of it is a copyvio, then a deletion will occur. However, I plan on in the future to restore the non-offending edits, so some of your earlier edits will now show back up. I understand most prep-school articles are not that great; Wikipedia has that general problem of many unseen articles looking like trash. Anyways, I don't mind helping yall out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. It's not about my edits. I just don't like deleting articles.  :) Mjl0509 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, I hate it as much as you do, but some times, you just gotta do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

{{currency}}

you would need to get the wording of the template changed before trying to remove that category. Anyways, because it is money doesn't mean it is free and needs to have another tag with it --Your edit summary.

I just changed the wording of the template, can it be removed now? And, yes, sure, it needs another tag, the issue is that including another tag does not remove it from this category, which is being used as a basis to tag images for deletion. See User_talk:Betacommand#Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg --Random832 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked to the user in IRC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro family

Can you give any details about the OTRS ticket which got the Talk page blanked, or is that covered by the OTRS complaint? Is it the mention of the IP addresses, which is visible in the history, or can you not even discuss that? The problem is the hoaxer has now managed to get the discussion blanked and will use that as an excuse to re-vandalize the article. Corvus cornix 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The history is still there, so you can just easily check it. Anyways, I noticed the talk page had tons of email addresses, so I hid those, and I kept the IP addresses so admins can deal with the socknet. I cannot say much on here, but the OTRS issues are pretty much resolved and I didn't have to do much stuff (other than that one edit). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Corvus cornix 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

After talks with some of the others involved, I have come to the realization I was being gamed by the spammer, so I am reverting myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ed pd

Question, do you have proof if the Edmeston Museum released the images into the public domain? If not, then the template would have to be deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This template can be deleted. Only 2 images that use it remain, and neither of them are still in use in Wikipedia. Those 2 images can also be deleted. All other images that used this template have since been moved to other wikis. — Nonenmac 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Two images still use the template, so I will figure out the next course of action. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Process for closing out incident threads

Hello. I understand why you wanted to end this tiresome thread, but deleting an entire thread [18], it won't get archived, which results in possible future problems if we try to reconstruct this. Restoring the deletion now will not preserve the edit history. In the future please consider marking threads with {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}, and asking the editors to move further talk elsewhere. Buddhipriya 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to get the thing archived; I wanted to remove endless ranting that even if I used said tags, it would be useless. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Please consider that these records do have potential future value should another ban on the user be requested, or if I find it necessary to defend myself against an accusation related to this matter. The removal of material from the thread results in the record of the nonsense being more difficult to reconstruct. However I do understand that your goal was a positive one, and thank you for it. Buddhipriya 08:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can provide the diff when needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Brownsea

Pls see my response at the Brownsea FAC. Thanks for your input. Rlevse 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On my way. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I would like to know why my last post on WP:AN was reverted. Yeah, I am mad, but I said nothing that needed to be reverted. I am angry with the "pre-emptive" actions and the bad faith. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments about the bad faith and stuff is what I reverted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what is happening. We not giving this user a second chance and blocks should not be used as an "appropriate precaution". This is bad faith, plain and simple. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad faith at all; he outs an editor, he is gone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof that he did. None has been shown. We are going on the word of an admin and it was an oversight to begin with. Little late for punishment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The oversight was the proof and ArbCom has the ability to see the oversight (which is why people are playing email tag with them). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But since it was an oversight, that means it was missed, missed for how long we are not sure. You can't punish someone for something they said weeks ago today. It would be like spanking a kid today for coloring on the wall three weeks ago. Still, the punishment doesn't fit the crime and the punishment needs to be reduced...considerably. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit was made today, only minutes before Trey was blocked. Nick 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He outed an editor; that is a breach of privacy policies and also harassment to the highest degree. That is not negotiable. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My "faked" OTRS letters

Hi. I just noticed your post on my Talk Page, so I thought I would respond. First of all, I should mention I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, and that everytime I expand the scope of my contributions and knowledge of the system, I inevitablly make some mistakes. For example, I have in the past uploaded copyrighted materials, ignorant to Wikipedia's Fair Use policies. I have also uploaded copyrighted materials that violate certain Fair Use criteria, specifically Criteria #1 (replaceable). For quite some time I assumed that all it took was an appropriate Fair-Use tag, sourcing information, and a Fair Use rationale and it was good to go. As far as I know, my mistakes have been rectified by either myself or through administrative steps where appropriate. To reiterate: I have made some uploading mistakes, but my edits were always with good intention and mistakenly done with ignorance.

So, in an attempt to play by the rules which I have recently become aware of, I have attempted to get permission for images under GFDL. I have successfully asked for permission under GFDL for the following photos:

• Image:Ian Svenonius.jpg
• Image:Make-Up outfits.jpg
• Image:Vince Vaughn.jpg
• Image:Cool Calm Pete.jpg
• Image:Michelle Mae.jpg
• Image:Bob Ostertag.jpg

I have also contacted the authors of the following images for GFDL permission, and they have since adjusted the copyright tags of those images:

• Image:Aesop Rock live.jpg
• Image:IanSvenoniusMercuryLounge.jpg

All of these photos except for the Bob Ostertag image were found on Flickr, and I contacted all of the authors internally using Flickr Mail. The Flickr account which I have used is similarly named as this account: Drewcifer3000. As for the Bob Ostertag image, I have known Bob personally for a couple years now (he teaches at UCDavis, from which I am a recent graduate) so I emailed him directly since I have his personal email address.

As far as I know, I have followed all the steps neccessary to document said permissions within the OTRS systems, according to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Now that I am being accused of "faking" said permissions, I am left to wonder what I possibly could have done differently. People with OTRS privelages previously found a number of my correspondences to be suitable. Though I should mention one case where the OTRS person emailed me back and asked me to be more specific with the author, which I was, and have since re-emailed my correspondance with the additional, clearer language. I fail to see how one person could find my correspondance suitable, and another "fake." I further fail to see how such accusations could result in the deletion of such images, by the same person doing the accusing, no less. If I am missing something then please let me know. I do not mind being wrong, but I do mind being threatened and accused. Thanks. Drewcifer3000 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I had with the with the email's were handled by other OTRS users is that we didn't get a copy of an email from the copyright holder himself. If you can send that to us, then the images will be restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that seems like a reasonable position, so why didn't you say that to begin with? Instead you accused me of lying, which seems pretty nonconstructive and inflammatory to me. And of course, Jeffrey O. Gustafson ran with that and has accused me of "deceptive copyleft tagging, copyright violations, and even OTRS forging" elsewhere. Now I'm in a situation where I need to clear my name.

Anyways, I'd be happy to send the original messages, but as I said above, the majority of those correspondences were done internally in Flickr, which makes simply forwarding things impossible. If you have any suggestions, let me know. I'd be happy to let you log into my Flickr account to see the original messages back and forth, assuming that in good faith you wouldn't abuse the account.

However, according to WP:COPYREQ and WP:ERP, I have done nothing wrong, and as far as I can tell I followed instructions to a tee. To quote: "Forward both your request and the answer received to that e-mail address, preferably together as one message (e.g., as attachments to one message of yours that would say that you received such-and-such release of which article or image)." I did exactly that, as far as I can tell.

But, my main goal here is to clear my name and get the images reinstated, not to bicker over policy. So, let me know what you recommend. Drewcifer3000 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I use Flickr too, you're welcome to send the messages to me to user Zscout370 on the site. If I sounded harsh, I do apologize for that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I am still relatively new to Flickr, however (I have only used it to ask for permission, so far), and I don't see any method of forwarding a message. If I am missing something let me know. As I said above, I'd be happy to let you log onto my account, which would probably be easier than forwarding 20+ messages. Drewcifer3000 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't go that far, but I know people ask for permission for Flickr photos a lot. I'll have others who dealt with the issue also come here and see if they can give you and I some pointers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But seriously, I think you logging onto my account would be easiest.... I'll change my password and change it back when your done. In and out, a few minutes tops. Drewcifer3000 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sooo.... anything? If you don't want to deal with it I could make a deletion review, but that seems unnecessarily bureaucratic don't you think? Drewcifer3000 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know if logging into your Flickr account would be good; if the email permissions were just recently, I have another option you can use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And the other option is? Drewcifer3000 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Have the copyright holders directly email us at permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, the same email you used to email us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude or difficult, but I've already bugged these people once, and I'd rather not bug them again. They were charitable enough to let us use the photos in the first place. Besides, nowhere (that I know of) does it stipulate that the authors should have to email anyone, and I believe I've followed the usual methods of documenting OTRS permissions to a tee. Drewcifer3000 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not going to hack into your Flickr account, I will only restore the photos with the OTRS email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zscout. I wouldn't presume to ask you to restore the images which were rightfully deleted as copyright violations, just the ones uploaded with permission. But what about image:Cool Calm Pete.jpg and image:Bob Ostertag.jpg? I sent the permissions to the OTRS system the same as the others, though they were deleted before the image pages reflected this, possibly before the emails were confirmed by someone with an OTRS account. I presume those are recoverable as well? Drewcifer3000 05:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, I do not wish to restore those images. Talk to the guys that tagged your images, since they read over your emails and probably know what to do. I do mostly deletions for OTRS; they like to deal with image permissions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, but unfortunately, that's where it gets a little complicated. Basically, all of the images (the 4 which you've already restored and the 2 in question now) were deleted by the same user, Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Apparently he does not have OTRS access at all, and seems to have deleted all of the images based solely on your estimation that I "faked" the letters. And Jeffrey failed to actually tag any of the images in the first place: he just speedy deleted them as soon as he felt it was justified (that is a whole nother issue: Jeffrey is currently the subject of a RfC because of things like that). And since he does not have OTRS access, we can safely assume that he did not actually read the OTRS emails before deleting the images, so I suppose those correspondences are still floating in limbo somewhere. So, as far as I can tell the only two options are for me to re-upload the images and re-send the emails, or have you restore the images so that they can be linked to the OTRS system when somebody reads the emails. At least, those are the only two options I see. Let me know what you think should be done. I'm sorry this is getting so complicated and lengthy, but I'm just trying to get things back to the way the should be, as transparently and by-the-books as possible. Thanks again for your time in resolving the issue. Drewcifer3000 07:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked to Jeff before the deletions, so that is how he knows I looked at them the first and found the way the email was done. I thought it was odd with the way the emails are formatted, but once I talked to other OTRS folks and they said the letter was fine, I decided to undelete. The other people that responded to your email, like Mecu, is also an admin you he can undelete and also add the permissions template. Pretty much, anyone who adds a permission template to an image, they mostly have OTRS access themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg

Watermarked images are a pain. This one seems to be PD, but as it often happens, somebody has vandalized it with a watermark - but it's the only copy we have. I don't have skills to remove the watermark, unfortunately. It's a good image, but if you think a better one can be used (from commons:Category:Soviet invasion of Poland), don't hesitate to replace it. Also, by all means, feel free to comment at FAC discussion and suggest further improvements.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor Irpen... I recall how much bickering it took to keep the image in Wikipedia, despite your vocal protestations. Now that he is gone from Wikipedia, you talk about vandalism. Sigh... --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What, Irpen is gone? Anyways, I wanted to bring a suggestion to the article without trying to kill the FAC, since I know finding photos will be hard (at least ones we can use). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese tea ceremony

Would you care to be more specific about what "the page looks very strange" means? The article was cleaned up shortly before you tagged it, and you haven't posted anything about the cleanup tag on the talk page. Exploding Boy 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Me and others were reviewing the page on IRC and we thought much of the text was written by someone who didn't know English that well. I am planning on also cleaning this up with others and, since you are writing this too, we need a bunch of citations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jan Sloot

You recently left a message about the article Jan Sloot (nl:) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands. While the claims of the subject may not be true, the subject itself is real, has lived and has received a lot of attention for his claimed invention. He died the day before he was to reveal his invention, which led to many conspiracy theories, several documentaries, at least one book and IIRC also one film. The claims by the subject may or may not be a hoax (Sloot took his invention with him to his grave), but the article itself is not a hoax. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a bunch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki

I don't see why we can't delete this user's userpage and talkpage if he says that he is leaving the project. The fact that the matter has been referred to ArbCom does not change the analysis; the arbitrators are of course all admins and can refer to the deleted content if they care to. If there is another reason these pages cannot be deleted, please let me know what it is. I see such deletion as in the best interests of everyone. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because what he wants to do is erase the fact he was indefinitely blocked and his situation is being referred to the ArbCom due to oversight and it is just too soon to perform the right to vanish. Same with the talk page; he wants everything gone. We did a blank as we could and I talked to Friday before he did the blanking, so whatever blanking Friday did, I had no issues with. Plus, you know where to find me on IRC, so if you feel this answer sucks, ping me there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how anyone or anything could be hurt in any way by granting the request of a departing user, with no history of socking, for deletion of the userspace pages. There could certainly be no impact of any kind in doing so on the arbitration matter, which I am familiar with (and which is moot anyway if the blocked user is leaving). I'll look for you on IRC to discuss if I am missing something important, but so far I don't think I am. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, except for the last few edits, the entire talk page was nuked. I am not sure if it was extended to the userpage as well. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:President of Belarus

I will soon, but modern Belarus is not something I know much about. On that note, check West Belarus and Belorussian minority in Poland, two articles I recently edited. On my 'to do' list is Polish minority in Belarus, perhaps we could collaborate on that? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pownce

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pownce. Since you undeleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corvus cornix 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't undelete, I made it a redirect. Fuzheado did the actual undeletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

St. Matthew's Churches

Thanks Zscout370 [19]. I was just wondering if I stuffed up and done something like that, and was coming to check, alas was beat to it :) Brian | (Talk) 08:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't stuff up, but we got emails before about the article. That is what got me and others to work on it the last time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Belarus at the Olympics

Yeah, that's fine! -- Mouse Nightshirt | talk 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck then on working with your article! I could have placed the article on hold, but I think the changes will take longer than the 7 days an article is allowed to be on hold for as there does need to be quite a bit more information in general. Once it has improved, you can feel free to take it to the Good Article nomination page. Best of luck! -- Mouse Nightshirt | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was two days? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's between 2 and 7 days. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well, about the section expansion, does something like Belarus_at_the_Olympics#2000_Sydney work? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Integration of Theory and Practice

What was OTRS Ticket 2007070910015881? FeloniousMonk 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTRS. Emails coming to OTRS are given ticket numbers, and that was the specific ticket number that prompted the deletion of the article. I cannot discuss contents of the email due to Foundation privacy policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So what does it take to get the article undeleted? If the problems with the article can't be discussed, how can they be rectified? Guettarda 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it dead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that rectifies the situation. It's an important article, and I can't see anything in it that violates any policy. The point is, if you don't explain what the problem is, there's no way to fix it. It's easy enough to remove material that violates policy. Gut the article if need be and start over from scratch. But we can't do that without some idea of what's wrong with it. Guettarda 14:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Just read WP:OTRS. So via email then... Guettarda 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTRS provides for deletions being discussed by email, which is where I suggest you explain the grounds for the deletion to me. Please email me with the details. BTW, I'm not about to "Just leave it dead" and intend to escalate this matter until it's either restored or I receive an sufficient explanation why it can't be. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk. Being an administrator, surely you must be aware that people entrusted with ORTS access are forbidden to discuss any such communication with outsiders, admins included. If you disagree with Zach's decision, you can contact any another person with ORTS access who can then examine the mail in question and inform you if a restoration of the content is possible or not. But given that the content of the mail itself is confidential, and you're not cleared for reading it, you cannot expect Zach or anybody else to share confidential information with you. And any threat to escalate a dispute is completely inappropriate behaviour for an admin. Have a nice day. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Valentinian - that's not what it says at WP:OTRS. It says to discuss the matter with the OTRS volunteer by email, and that: OTRS volunteers are ultimately subject to the communications committee and, as Wikipedia editors, to the Arbitration Committee through the normal processes of dispute resolution. OTRS access is "not a badge". Zach's "[j]ust leave it dead" comment is not in the spirit of my understanding of OTRS at all. Telling people "don't question my judgment" isn't acceptable behaviour. Scolding FM for following the appopriate guideline isn't acceptable behaviour. Guettarda 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Revealing confidential information entrusted to you by another legal party [in this case: the Wikimedia Foundation] is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions. I'm no admin but I held similar positions of trust IRL for five years of my life and those positions involved handling sensitive information. The situation for the ORTS volunteers is not special in any way. It is exactly the same situation as if somebody asked to be allowed access to the list of members of an association. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vanentinian, I'm the newest and most juniorish OTRS person, but I think you're overstating the situation. Things that come in to OTRS may be too sensitive to discuss elsewhere, but in many cases just require some discretion. That's not "We'll tell anyone who asks", but in many cases an admin with a good should be able to get a good answer (in email, usually). This one did go to email and is being addressed (I hear; I'm not privy to the emails). Georgewilliamherbert 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, I got your email this morning and responded to you there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Belarus

Great work so far! If you want me to review it again, drop me a line when you're finished. Good luck. --Victor12 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a second opinion on this

Dear Zscout, how are you? long time no see...

I contact you because, being yourself a member having great knowledge in flags, I'd love if you could take a look at this article: Flag of Valencia.

I created the article, proving that the flag is of proportions 2:3 (length is 1 ½ times the width). This 2:3 version is sourced by a decree, the Spanish Vexillological Society, a book and pictures on official buildings.

User Benimerin keeps reverting and reverting claiming unsourced or even "invented by himself" points (like 1:2 proportions are more "representative").

Other users have expressed their agreenment with my point in my talk page, but having written in spanish, I cannot use it in the article's talk page.

If you would be so nice to take a read at both our versions and the talk page, I'd love to have a second opinion in how to manage this situation. I believe my edits proven and sourced enough for this user to revert them every single time. I also believe this user is preventing WP:V (he is erasing sources given by me) and WP:NOR (is theory that 1:2 is more "representative"), apart is countinuous edit warring.

What do you think? --Maurice27 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Anyways, if the law says the flag must be displayed like X, we will have to display it as X. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that Maurice27 is not telling true things. The decree he mentions is not about Valencian flag, but about flags of Valencian municipalities (the title tells "... se regulan los símbolos, tratamientos y honores de las entidades locales de la Comunidad Valenciana", translation from Spanish: "... through symbols, treatments and honours of local entities of Valencian Community are regulated"). The concrete decree about the Valencian flag is another one different, and it's being included as footnote #2 in Flag of Valencia (the title tells "... es regulen els simbols de la Comunitat Valenciana i el seu ús.", translation from Catalan: "... through symbols of the Valencian Community and its usage are both regulated").

In adding, the decree about flags for Valencian municipalities is telling that it's "preferably" to be 2:3, but not uniquelly (Article 12.3: "2. La bandera será preferentemente cuadrilonga de proporciones 2:3 ...", translation: "The flag shall be preferably rectangle in 2:3 proportions ... "), so different proportions can be used if the Town Council agrees that. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

They are only suggesting 2x3 since the Spanish flag is that way (same with the EU). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

Sorry, what on earth was this about?--Rambutan (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First, using the {{vandal}} tag for an admin isn't the best thing in the world and sorry about that there. But I think telling an admin that you will revert until evidence is provided isn't the best thing either. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an admin I told that. The {{vandal}} tag is just a convenient way of displaying the list of his blocks etc., and I tried dialogue on his talkpage and he said "there's nothing to complain about". Anyway, if that's your view of the situation, you should write it underneath, not just delete the thread?--Rambutan (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I am currently involved in an edit war with an anon User:User: 70.189.74.49 on the article Thematic motifs of Lost. I have reported this editor for a 3RR violation, but nothing seems to be happening. He blanked his talk page, with the warnings, and his edit summary was "good luck with that." I and other editors have tried to engage him in discussion on the article's talk page, but the only response we seem to get is "you're wrong and you just don't see it." I really want to avoid 3 reverts myself and I want to discuss this content dispute rationally. Any suggestions? Ursasapien (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention but I found assistance already. Happy editing! Ursasapien (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FOTW copyright/license

Hi there again,

I was looking to improve some flags from Spain articles, and of course I was investigating at FOTW a little bit. I noticed that all articles at FOTW state that: "Flags of the World is produced and maintained by an Editorial Staff of unpaid volunteers and the contents of these pages are offered freely to the Internet community."

• Does this mean I can freely copy/paste its content in wikipedia as long as I attribute its author(s) or licensor(s).?
• Is there a copyright/license tag inwikipedia to do this?

Cheers, --Maurice27 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Maurice, FOTW images cannot be used on Wikipedia. FOTW staff have been debating that for years and they will not allow the work to be added here en mass. However, you are allowed to email the individual editors to see if their images can be used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of Flags Based on British Ensigns?

Why was this deleted? Is there anywhere I can access some of those flags? - MichiganCharms 03:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It was moved to the Wikimedia Commons, so it qualified for a speedy deletion. The flag images exist there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins

• you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this.

I'm not sure I see in your comment a valid reason to delete the article. The last version had three sentences. I can't beleive that those three sentences violated BLP or were copyvios. If they were, those problems can be fixed without deleting the article. The subject is undoubtedly notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The three sentence thing was a BLP violation in the OTRS emails, so that is why I nuked the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we should remove the offending material and restore the rest. There's no question that this fellow is notable, and that neutral material is available on him. I realize you may be tired of dealing with this matter, but frustration isn't a good reason to delete an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I said before, I am getting emails from all sides of the debates for copyvio for this, BLP for that, libel for this and, quite honestly, with Jimbo's new decision to do no harm, it played a factor. But honestly, I people are citing BLP and libel with the article being three sentences, there is a major problem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some folks will complain about anything. It'd be great if we could make everyone happy, but I've never heard of a subject who thought his biography was perfect. While we don't want to repeat libels, or the any personal information disclosed as part of OTRS, we can still discuss the problems with the article. I see no legitimate reason to delete the article entirely. If the subject or his agents have identified specific sources or material they find repugnant then let's say so and work around them. Again, it sounds to me like this is a frustrating matter, but that deleting the article isn't within policy. Maybe I'm mistaken - feel free to email me if there's a special circumstance. Otherwise I'm inclined to take this to deletion review. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since many of the issues were hashed out on OTRS, DRV will most likely be denied there, since I would have to repeat the things I can. Go ahead and email me and we can work it out on there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball

Made a bot request for this. I have done all of the years, except for 1978, 1933-1942, 1948-1957, 1963-72 for the New York Yankees. Cheers. Miranda 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rape Victims category

Looks like the category was deleted without a discussion (XFD) based on the actions of one determined editor. I think it was wrong, that he empties the category, then puts a speedy and someone deletes it when other admins (such as User:Pascal.Tesson) have adviced him to take it to XFD to see what the community thinks. Ithink as the person who deleted it, you should actually put it up for XFD instead or someone will recreate this category. Thanks Taprobanus 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not doing it. This category is a violation of BLP, as others have stated on the talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How to add panorama of Milpitas Civic Center?

Hi,

I've added panorama of Milpitas Civic Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milpitas_Civic_Center.jpg

with an idea to change the passage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milpitas

== The Milpitas Civic Center, which includes the City Hall and local branch of the Santa Clara

County Library... ==

and the following

== The Civic Center... ==

with the same but referencing this pano.

I really think that we can bring Milpitas article's photos to the level a little bit higher ;)

Regards, DmitryG

I added the photograph to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Ok, I see your point now. I won't dispute the comment, but I've notified the baseball-reference website via e-mail asking about that. If they are given an OK by the b-r site, are we allowed to keep the stats up then? I'm currently awaiting the e-mail response. Soxrock 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I've got two questions for you:

• A) What is white-listing?
• B) The person I'm talking to says there are "nofollow tags"? What are those? He claims to be "galled by them"

Thank you Soxrock 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sent me the email and I will read over it. Then forward the email to WP:OTRS Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, there is a "black list" of websites that cannot be added to Wikipedia at all. Wheb a page is white-listed, then it is allowed on the site despite being blocked earlier. As for nofollow tags, they are a tag telling website search engines to not rank this site higher because of linking. I believe Google can explain it better than I can. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm confused. Because Sean Forman wants his site white-listed here if we use his stats (he also says that they are in public domain) but you said that white-listing means they were previously blocked. Is that a good thing to be white-listed, and something you want? Soxrock 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

White-listed for what? Since yall were able to edit pages with the website link on, it means we can still link. Um...you know what, have him email me at zscout370 at hotmail dot com so I can deal with him personally. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've finished my discussion. Here it is in its entirety

Discussion with Baseball-Reference.com

Ok, you wanted this. Here is my conversation with Sean Forman, operator of Baseball-Reference.com

• Soxrock: Hi there. I am someone who edits Wikipedia. Are we allowed to use a portion

of your stats for our seasonal pages? I only ask because I read the Terms and Conditions. Any response will be appreciated

• Forman: To what extent will you be using the stats? Will this be an automated

culling of the stats on all pages, or just a citation of stats from a handful of pages?

• Soxrock: Check out the 1921 New York Yankees season

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_New_York_Yankees_season). The plan is to use the prominent stats, you know, Games played, At-bats, HR, RBI... but not to use the in-depth stats (like OBP). In the external links, we have you cited for the in-depth stats. As for the usage, we'll have you cited on every page that we have stats from your site on (that's every single individual season page we create, which will be for all 30 teams). If you cannot grant it for us on all those pages (roughly 2500 pages with a portion your stats and citation), then we'll try to find a reduced way to use them, if you allow. Thanks for the response

• Forman: I have to say I have some problems with using this much of my stats on

your pages. Why do you want to take so much time entering that data when there are much better formatted sources for statistical data available? Why not focus on the narrative for the team rather than factual data that is available elsewhere? I'm assuming the gamelogs are also being transcribed from my site or retrosheet's.

Wikipedia takes a lot of traffic from my site and due to the use of the nofollow tag, I get only some benefit from the use of the data and the links to my site. Would it be possible to have my site white-listed and have the nofollow tags taken off of links to my site?

I'm not saying no out of hand, but I feel like Wikipedia does not compensate the content holders for the data they provide. The use of the nofollow really galls me.

Let me explain the nofollow tag. Search engines rank sites on the basis of the sites that link to them. Adding a nofollow tag (do a view source on a page with my site and you'll see a rel="nofollow" in the code for links to any external site) tells the search engine to ignore this link. I have thousands of links from wikipedia and there is some benefit to that, but my standing in the search engines is hampered because Wikipedia is a giant link juice sink. It benefits from everyone's link to it, but does not return the favor to sites it links. It is very selfish behaviour. I would appreciate if you would ask someone in charge that you are going to use data from my site on 1000's of pages and will be linking to it, but would like to remove the nofollow from those links. If this really is such a great project, that should be no problem. I'm not a spammer.

The other issue is that reference.com and answers.com and others can take a dump of wikipedia database strip out the external links and then make money off of my content.

That is all well and good, but what happens when I go out of business? You say you enjoy the site, but your work actively undermines its health. You can say "C'est la vie", but those are the facts.

I can't stop you from using the data and I appreciate the link, but I feel that these actions essentially only benefit Wikipedia, and damage me.

• Soxrock Oh, so your concern is that, by using a portion of your stats on our pages,

we will reduce the number of visitors on your site, which will lead to fewer ads, which in turn will lead to less money, makinf ir harder to keep your site on. I see your concern now.

I'll continue to find white-listing. I mean, I hope that you say yes, but, then again, I would hope that saying that wouldn't hurt your website and your life at the same time. Thanks for your response

• Forman: Yes, that is what I mean. For example, if Wikipedia were to move

ahead of me on searches for ballplayers, it is not outside the realm of possiblity that I would be forced to quit working on the site full-time as I've been doing for a year and go back to my day job. I have a hard time encouraging that to happen.

I know that the data is in the public domain and can't be copyrighted, but I just wish WP was a little better at compensating their sources.

• Soxrock: Yeah, I see now. I try to list all my sources whenever I make pages, but

I'm not trying to hurt people's lives or sites. And seeing how Wikipedia is always ahead of your site on searches (sometimes I don't even see you), I see why you wouldn't be happy about the nofollow tags. I feel sorry that they apply, because it affects what both of us do, because if there were no nofollow tags, you might be able to say yes and not be affected. I feel sorry for that. Eitherway, I'll look into white-listing, it might be fair compensation for you. Of course, there is a dispute over at Wikipedia about how the numbers are copyrighted or not. It appeared we might be able to use stats until I saw your terms of use, which is why I'm talking with you. Thanks for the reply

• Forman: Thank you. You are welcome to use stats in a manner such as hand

entering data, but I would be opposed to machine-aided copying of large numbers of pages.

• Soxrock: Wait, by hand entering, do you mean typing it in, or writing it out on a

paper or something? And, by machine-aided copying, do you mean using something like a robot to do so quicker? Thanks

• Forman: Yes, if you want to go and type in all of that data, that would be ok.

My concern is in you using a robot to grab the data and auto-enter it into wikipedia. You should also keep in mind that occasionally the data does change as corrections are found.

• Soxrock: Oh, why didn't you just say so? Of course it's hand entering, we have to format it and everything, we can't just copy and paste or it would look

too-similar and it would look crappy anyway, so it will be hand entering. It takes at least 20 minutes to add stats to a page, and we do not use robots for adding stats, it would create a huge mess. Thanks for your permission to use the stats and your site will be linked on every page. I'll tell other users. Thank you so much, and, again, they will be hand entered, not machine-aided copying. I don't even know how to use a robot on that site

• Forman: OK, that's fine.

In other words, it is OK to use the stats from baseball-reference. He has said OK to it Soxrock 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...so we can type the stuff in by hand, yet, he doesn't want us to jump ahead of him for player searches. I can pretty much assure that we do not want machine-like articles; we done it before with Rambot for US cities and most of those looked thrown together. But as for the white listing that Mr. Forman wants, I can easily tell you that he won't get it. We can white list pages that are on a block list, but we cannot white list anything related "nofollow." Do you mind if I talk to Mr. Forman myself? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will email soon (I redacted it so it won't be snapped up by spambots). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to make sure that if we do include stats they he definetly says yes to someone who is smart at copyrights and he says it won't affect him. He said it affected him in my discussion, but that's still dangerous and will not hurt someones life for some additional, luxurious info. We can just include some stats in the prose (like:

Alex Rodriguez hit 34 homeruns and drove in 99 RBI during the season). We don't need to hurt people with this, though Soxrock 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not emailed him yet, as you can tell, I am pretty much pulled in a lot of directions on this site. I'll email him either tonight or tomorrow. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there and good morning! When you are done with it, please post your discussion with Forman up here. It's important that we know what he thinks here as well as when he talked to me. Soxrock 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but due to the place where the emails are taking at, I am not allowed to post my results. However, as I told the baseball project, all of the copyright issues that you solved were reconfirmed by him. Now, it is just a discussion about nofollow. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Example images in Non-nude photography

I have reverted your premature and out-of-process deletion of Image:NonNudeExample1.jpg and Image:NonNudeExample2.jpg which are the subject of an active IfD which has been open for only 1.5 days. Your edit summary claims "uploader has not told us he was the creator of the photos", which is not the case per the license, which clearly asserts that the uploader is the maker of the photos and that they are released to the public domain ("I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain."), as does the edit summary (User:Cgros841 clearly equals "Photo by Craig M. Groshek"). There is no prima facie case for copyvio at all, and the images do not even remotely qualify for speedy deletion as CSD:G12, blatant copyright infringement. (This is obviously not the case of something like a well-known news or historical photo.) As for the right of publicity/privacy/model release issue, that is worthy of a larger discussion -- probably on a policy page like Wikipedia:Image use policy and not a specific IfD, but given that Wikipedia contains many, many images of images of unidentified and not necessarily recognizable persons, without model releases, and that the rights involved are complex and vary widely by jurisdiction, it is also not a criterion for speedy deletion.

If you wish to bring up these or other concerns, the proper place is the IfD, and not speedy deletion, especially based on what appears to be inaccurate assumptions about the source and creation of the image. Thanks, MCB 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has redeleted them. ElinorD (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't message Jimbo about these, I swear. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of Canada a derivitive ?

Hey Zscout,

Im up in Quebec learning french again, and the museum around the corner has an Order of Canada member's badge on display and the scroll presented to the recipient (someone named Maurice Proulx). I was about to upload the photo I took of it onto the commons but two things : 1) Is it a derivitive work, considering the order of canada medallion itself is probably subject to copyright (I doubt Rideau Hall would sue but...) 2) Its a little fuzzy...I took it just when my cameras batteries were dying.

So, what should I upload it as ?

Dowew 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll show this to other Commons admins and I suggest to email me the photos so I can look at them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

image:Cool_Calm_Pete.jpg (Hopefully the last time I bug you about this)

Hey Zscout. Hopefully you remember me, the guy all up in arms because his images were deleted with GFDL permissions and all that craziness. You restored a number of my images, which was great, but there were two which you didn't, since we assumed when someone read the GFDL letters everything would be taken care of. That worked for one of the image (image:Bob_Ostertag.jpg) but not the other one (image:Cool Calm Pete.jpg). The Cool Calm Pete image is still in limbo. Strangely enough, however, I got a response from my GFDL letter from permission at wikimedia dot org (ticket #2007070810012411) saying everything checked out. That was a week ago, and even though the permission email said everything was cool, the image has not been restored. So, instead of me uploading it which might be inflammatory to yourself of Jeffrey O. Gustafson, I thought I'd see if you could be so kind as to restore the image so that it can be cross-referenced with the email. If you need me to forward the from Wikimedia I'd be happy to. Hopefully this is the last time you'll have to deal with my endless complaints. Thanks alot for you time. Drewcifer3000 08:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored, so go ahead and add the ticket number to the page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. If you could just double check the image page for me, just to make sure I put the ticket number in right. Thanks a ton. Drewcifer3000 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vocal file of Kimi Ga Yo?

All the .ogg files at the Kimi Ga Yo entry are instrumental files. Can you provide a vocal file, please? Inkan1969 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can, but I need to check on copyright of the files that I have. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Inkan1969 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I got a few vocal recordings that fit the PD-Japan template rules. I modified one of the files to cut out a long instrumental so we can just get the vocal. Enjoy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why delete Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg?

I was about to add the page Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg containing "[[Category:SVG sovereign state flags]]" so that Canada's flag would appear in that category. This is exactly what was done with other flags such as Image:Flag_of_Afghanistan.svg. However, I noticed that you have previously deleted this exact page with these exact contents, with no explanation. Can you please tell me why you did that? Thanks, --Doradus 06:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images_and_media, criteria I8. Pretty much, why do we need have to categories for images that exist on the Commons? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're just asking for it, aren't you!

We need more editors like you! Especially editors who use Australian English :D Have a cookie for being awesome! Giggy _U^CP 08:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• munch*Thanks*munch* Tasty. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi Zscout. I recently reviewed Age of Mythology, which you requested peer review for. If you have any comments about my review, or you would like a further review of the article, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Good luck with the article! :) Sebi _[talk] 08:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Negaraku

Kinda tough to clean up. Judging from the talk page, it is already controversial. __earth ^(Talk) 04:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I already had to revert the article twice to get rid of some video from the website YouTube. I should have a public domain recording of Negaraku somewhere in my anthem collection, so I need to dig it out and send it here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dean Smith FA

I'm glad your interested in collecting the bounty for Dean Smith. I have given you the month of August as well to get the article up to FA status since there is no other competition and you claimed it so late in the month. I also try to get that email that granted permission for the picture. Remember 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please unlock my userspace

Please unlock User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/millwatch. I will gladly move it before restoring the item. There is no non-abusive case for saying I can't have a link at all. A.J.A. 13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlocked. Also, as I said in my protection message, I can confirm Daniel is an OTRS staff person. I also use the system under my real name, which is on my userpage. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image that needs deletion

If you have time, can you please see about deleting File:Wrench and spear.JPG, or tell me how I can remove the image myself? I used a very crude self-made rendition of an item of Evangelion canon in the image; given the problems that have arisen with my suggestion of the NGE-related Wikipe-tan image, I'd like to avoid futher trouble regarding fair use issues, and ff this qualifies as a fair use violation then I'd like to rectify it before it has a chance to become a problem. Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthem

Hi, I just got your message (these days it's really hectic for me). It's cool that you have decided to write a FA. I will see what I can dig up when I get home... Renata 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Hong Kong

I placed the article on WP:FAR, you may comment here as I know your specialty are flag articles. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: bot run

What should I use as the section name for the mass notifying? ^∆ 22:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com image warning

Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Coat of Arms of Georgia (Sakartvelo).png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com image warning

Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Flag of Colonial Jamaica.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zach. I uploaded a new version of this image that lacks the ties to vector-images.com. Cheers, Himasaram 06:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com image warning

Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Flag of Novogrudok, Belarus.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment appreciated

On deleted fair use image at Image talk:Przyszowice massacre tombstone.jpg. Also, here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Belarus president residence

You could find it as background on Image:Belarus-Minsk-Boy Playing with Swan Sculpture-1.jpg. --EugeneZelenko 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com images

I have added the following to WP:AN, based on my understanding of [20]

Thanks for the link. It seems Vector-Images.com sees its business as selling vector versions of its images, and is happy for the promotional raster preview version it supplies to be used without restriction, so long as it is identified as the creator. This includes commercial use. It is not 100% explicitly clear that it includes modification -- eg tracing to produce competing vector SVG art. It seems the balance of opinion on Commons is that that is permitted too. So I am now slightly at a loss to understand Zscout's assertion that "The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines". But perhaps he can clarify.

What is recognised as a potential problem for Commons is any copyright remaining in the underlying heraldic specification. In very many cases this will now be PD. Where it is not, WP:NFCC #1 would not apply (we wouldn't be able to redraw our way around it), so we would then need to consider whether fair use was appropriate.

However, that no longer seems to square with what Zscout is saying, so this may need a further looking at.

I'd welcome clarification on where the problems are that you see with these images? Jheald 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the license we had here was a complete duplicate of what was at the Commons. The Commons, based on emails from Russian users to the Russian staff of the website, has stated the terms of the images. Pretty much, all they gave us was a permission to use the images with a linkback. That was fine until the Foundation made a new image policy in March of 2007. So, based on the new policy, we emailed them again asking to clarify. They did not, so it was decided in May of 2007 at the Commons to depreciate the template. I just got around to depreciating now; they also began to stop uploads from that website. Pretty much, what is the underlying issue is the following: should we redraw or not. There are some images that they drew that were based from PD sources or from other sources, such as blazons. Some of the images affected might fall under PD-Russia, but I am not sure if they will. Many of the images that are affected here are Commonwealth Coat of Arms, which I don't know a whole lot about. While I stated in the self-composed message that the images will be on here for two more weeks, but I honestly believe a personal review of the images need to take place. I am willing and able to do that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, I think you are misunderstanding the position at Commons. The current discussion, as I understand it, is this one [21]. The discussion is not yet concluded, but AFAICS the likely outcome is to keep the majority of images. It appears to be accepted that VI's permissions regarding its own copyright rights are acceptable per www.freedomdefined.org/Definition . This also seems to be the view on the Commons talk page [22], following the response of 18 May 2007.

At issue then is not whether we have to redraw. We don't have to. At issue is whether we can use any drawing of the underlying designs, because of the original copyright in those designs -- ie the copyright in the blazons, not the copyright in the drawings of the blazons.

Many of those blazons will be PD, in which case we can use VI's images, under their image copyright release.

Some of those blazons will not be PD, but will still pass WP:NFC's guidance on logos -- in which case we can still use VI's images, but the blazon copyright holder also needs to be acknowledged, and a non-free content use rationale added.

Only if blazons are not PD, and their use cannot pass WP:NFC must the images be deleted. In that case, redrawing does not help.

Do you agree? Jheald 10:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you and others could make it pass the NFCC requirements, then we could keep the images, or just send them to the Commons so they can deal with it. I was thinking maybe a Google search could help things. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

VC article/spell-checker

when using a spell-checker look at what you're changing, a number of the changes you made in the Victoria Cross article were to verbatim quotes from the original Royal Warrant setting up the VC. Whilst these are not current UK usage, they should be left as they are in quotes. David Underdown 09:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its wonderful that your working on an english version spell checker, but please when testing dont use Featured articles even though your edits are able to be reverted. Gnangarra 09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect to the reverted, but I will keep what David said in mind. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:FELIXARD images

That's a shame. After looking over his uploads, I noticed that a few were candids, the sort of shots that someone involved in the production might take on their off time. Anyway, thanks for the notice. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish minority in Belarus

I thought you may want to review this new article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthem

Ok, check your email for a small article. Still trying to dig up stuff on soviet times. Renata

Replied to said email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Articles

About a week ago you removed several nominations from the Good article candidates list (here), including Derby County F.C.. While I don't neccesarily disagree with this, you haven't yet removed the good article nomination tag from Talk:Derby County F.C. and left your reasons for failing it. If you would do so I would be grateful. Thanks. - Boy1jhn 11:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Boy1jhn 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian name

Why is Belarusian name redirecting to White Russia?

I am asking you, because you are the only editor of the page. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know where exactly it was decided, but the redirect can easily be undone. If you wish to make the article, go ahead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish i could make it! Can you?

Actually i am quite curious about it. I absolutely love these little differences between Belarusian and Russian - Пятрусь, Сымон, Сяржук ... --Amir E. Aharoni 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm...I might do it, but I will need some help on this one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dean Smith image

I emailed you the authorization for his main image. Did you not get it or did you want to contact the Flickr user himself? Remember 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I got it, but I do not believe that is enough permission for us now. Don't worry, I am an administrator so if it does get deleted, I can restore it. I can email the Flickr user today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've also seen you working hard on adding content to the Smith article. Keep it up; your doing great! Remember 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. I sent the permissions later now. I gave him a link of acceptable licenses and also an address to where he can mail the permissions too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

National emblem of Belarus

I can't seem to get into the Commons discussion-why should they want to delete the image? Chris 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The source of the images, Vector-Images, has a license terms that doesn't meet Commons requirements, so they are being discussed for deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No that's not the problem.

The source of the images, Vector-Images has a license that is fine, to the extent that it relates to the value that VI has added.

However, the images are based on an underlying heraldic design, and the copyright position of that underlying design (not owned by VI) is unclear.

Therefore, for an image like national emblem of Belarus, you need to establish not only the licensing of VI's drawing (which is fine); but also the licensing position of the underlying emblem itself -- which depending on the facts, and Belorussian law, might be (i) old, and out of copyright; (ii) placed in the public domain; (iii) copyright to the Belorussian state, but with a liberal licence; (iv) copyright to the Belorussian state, with no acceptable licensing.

If (i) to (iii), then everything is fine. If (iv), you would then need to explain why usage of the emblem on your page is "fair use". Jheald 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian copyright law, under Article 8, puts symbols into the public domain. I do not know if this extends to works from the BySSR era (I was told it does, but I don't know). Pretty much, the Commons is leaning towards a disuse of the template and of the images that are used by it until a further review is done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pius XII coa.png

The problem is that on the template that I linked you to, it doesn't allow several things. The website terms is here. We also determined on the Commons that this is not an acceptable license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - I don't think Commons did determine that, actually. Jheald 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice, but the determinations of here are too complicated for me. Thus I must trust in your expertise. I have remove the above image. But I can not comprehend, why the coat of arms of the other popes are allowed. Kind regards --Beartd_άρχης 14:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because, as you see from other headings, I am dealing with images from a specific website now. All of the pope coat of arms I am dealing with now are from that site. Eventually, the other popes arms will be dealt with by me and others. Also, another hint, it is a bad idea to have fair use images on your userpage. See our policy page for more details. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's for me not comprehensible: The coats of arms of the Popes are the symbols as their religious head and are freely accessible for over a billion Roman catholics and to other interested one in the whole world (at Easter more f.e.) and thus public common property/knowledge/public domain. What kind is valid for one coat of arms, applies to all others for equal treatment reasons (f.e. Ioannes Paulus II., Benedictus XVI.)--Beartd_άρχης 10:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• • All Popes coming down to modern times had no personality after the acceptance of their choice of the college of cardinals (which during this action the The Holy Sspirit represented (look RK CIC). Logically they have and have had no personal personality too. Insofart especially not to new created papal coats of arms too. Is is property of the whole wold-church and thus the people of God and Godsend. Possibly argue US-American right scholars differently, but that would be an offence against the Codex irus canonici (CIC) and thus inadmissible defence because the CIC is valid overall in the world.--Beartd_άρχης 03:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Everything created today has automatic copyright, so the arms of the various popes are copyrighted. Lots of the things created by the Vatican are covered by copyright, including photographs of the Holy Father. So, I don't think I will offend God or anyone connected to the Pope for the issue of the arms copyright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of Arms of Mexico

Hello Zach. I noticed that the SVG files for the flag and COA of Mexico have been updated. The new files are awesome, but there's a little problem. The eyes of the eagle are presented as white and black, which is wrong. The eyes are a shade of orange and black. Do you think you can fix it? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Alex. What I did is I fixed the eyes. There is another problem I noticed with the fruit of the cactus, so I need to figure out what to do with that. I would need maybe two nights to figure out what to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I just needed a few minutes to fix the other issue. Uploading images now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Zach, thank you very much for your fast response and congratulations for an awesome job! I look up to you my friend. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help you out again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

barnstars

as i have seen you have made many barnstars. i was wondering how you change the colour of a barnstar. i was going to make one or two for the u2 wikiproject. please get back to me asap. thanks, Smithcool 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the first idea i had was the colours of the u2 album htdaab. it is red and black strip. 09:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

like this: (NOTE: IMAGE NOT ON WIKIPEDIA!!) [23], also the one for GA's as the same but with the image in the middle. Smithcool 13:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for Rydel

Hi,

I noticed that you are an administrator and that you do some graphics work.

Can you please replace the barnstar on User:Rydel's page with "BoNM - Belarus-white-red-white.png"?

I put the original generic Barnstar of National Merit there, but i always really meant to award him one with a white-red-white flag. Now i finally made it, but his page is locked.

Also, if you can improve my Belarusian barnstars, you may do it.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will be my honor to do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I can fill out in that form, but I'm still willing to do the prefecture flags. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be the Prefectures taskforce. And thank you for being willing to make up the flags. I would recommend uploading them to Wikipedia Commons if they can be. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just busy IRL, so a lot of times, I probably won't be home. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I have more copies of Kimi ga Yo to send to the Commons, but I need to cleanup the audio. My stereo headphones broke last night, so trying to fix minute details will be quite a challenge. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete Corinna Fugate

I was adding notability stuff as you did it, and someone had just added a hangon. (which was why I had an edit conflict and was delatyed adding the notability) --Thespian 17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

nm, I recreated it. Sorry, but while I'm happy to let it go to AfD, I don't think it deserved that speedy a deletion; I can't tell now when Mike speedy nommed it, but seriously, I woke up 15m ago and noticed that, went to see what I could do. --Thespian 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was nominated about 20 minutes ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish presidential template

I'd appreciate any information you'd have on that issue. The closest I have came is commons:commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Other_views_please, but I don't know who if anybody tried to contact the Polish presidential office in that case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If no one is contacting the office, then we have no choice but to close the debate. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

barnstars

i was last talking to you on the 6th about a u2 barnstar but you havent got back to me yet. i was just reminding you if you have forgotten. if you are too busy, it is ok and it can wait. thanks. Smithcool 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Check your talk page. I haven't forgotten, but I was trying to get an idea of what you want. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

You just removed one of my own pictures of the three sisters that I took myself--Ad@m.J.W.C. 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the template but with another image, mine--Ad@m.J.W.C. 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:User WP ODM‎

Thanks for that. Image policy here is one of those things which irritates the blazes out of me. There should be absolutely no reason that NZ Crown Copyright should not be used - the release is generous enough that it certainly isn't used under a fair use claim. However, that said, it's nice to see a new medal being used in the box. My interests are UK-biased, but it wouldn't be a good thing to give the impression that WP:ODM is solely concerned with British medals. Perhaps we could have a regular change of medal in these two templates? Yesterday the VC, today, Hero of Belarus, tomorrow, which one? (Obviously I'm not suggesting changing every day, perhaps once a month or so?)

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the policy is out of hands; I was working to see if there is a free image of the VC that we could use. Since I didn't find any, I went and looked at some of the medals I uploaded in the past and I saw mostly the Hero titles. But, I have another solution. I am not sure if I told yall, but I did many of the ribbon images for medals (including for the VC, Order of Canada and Medal of Honor). I am thinking of drawing a graphic showing three medals (basic). Since it will be in SVG, not only we will have transparency but also scalability. I'll fire up inkscape now and figure something out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, though for these two templates simple graphical impact is the key. If it doesn't scale down too well to these sizes then the templates will lack clarity and punch. Actually apropos graphics, I was contemplating changing the main banner image a few days ago (Template:WPODMBanner). I think that it is fairly striking, but it is fairly country-specific. Having said that, after an hour or so tinkering around in Photoshop, I wasn't able to come up with any 'international' themes which I could work with.

Xdamr^talk 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I got the stub icon ready and up now. I think I have a project icon ready, just need to find it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here it is: Image:ODM article award.png. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)