User talk:MECU

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - MECU

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the + on the navigation bar above. In addition, I request you be complete and descriptive in your comments. Do not assume I know what you are talking about. Providing links to both the subject and any relevant policies are encouraged. If you do not need a reply, please state as such. Do not edit any other users comments. Most of all, be polite, even if you feel I have not been polite to you.

Please respect Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 6 days are automatically archived to User talk:Mecu/Archive/Archive-Dec2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived. You may see all archived pages at [1].

Archives
June 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 August-November 2006 December 2006 January 2007

Nomanation for Deletion of Image:Donald North Court (CY).jpg

I was wonder why you nomanated this photo for deletion. The photo was done by me, non-objectable, and was for the Camp Yawgoog article. KB1KOI 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Comments in the Chris Leak Page

Excuse me, you are not allowed to delete somebody's comments in the discussion page. Users are entitled to thier opinions, and you need to respect that. Thanks. Dcmcgov 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image "Image:RA Montgomery CVL 22.jpg"

Hi, you have mentioned: "Image:RA Montgomery CVL 22.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cvl-22.com/pics3.html. As a copyright violation, Image:RA Montgomery CVL 22.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria."

Please note, pictures taken aboard US Navy aircraft carriers during combat operations in WWII have the licensing "PD-USGov-Military-Navy" with the following description:

"This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain"

So your deletion was not correct, or has something changed with the label "PD-USGov-Military-Navy"?

Please explain me the copyright violation of this "PD-USGov-Military-Navy"-picture:

http://www.cvl-22.com/56.jpg

Andy Felix c 22:30, 7 January 2007

Hi Mecu, thanks for your explanation. I have removed the deleted picture from "Alex Vraciu".

Anyway i'm not completely sure, if the pic really had to be deleted, you have mentioned:

"Unfortunately you took the image from a site which states "All pictures used on this site are the copyrighted works of Wyatt Wolfe Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. 2005". As such, it's hard to believe that the image was the product of the US Federal Government. The deleting admin agreed with me and deleted the image."

Wyatt Wolfe is mentioning on his website:

"This site is owned and maintained by Wyatt Wolfe in honor to his father, Glenn E Wolfe Sr, who served on board the USS Independence CVL-22 during World War II. Credit is given to the respective owners of all photographs. The picture works are copyright Wyatt Wolfe 2005"

http://www.cvl-22.com/index.html

The label "PD-USGov-Military-Navy" states: "This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties."

If Glenn E Wolfe Sr "served on board the USS Independence", didn't he made the images "during his official duties"?

So how can his son Wyatt Wolfe mention "use is strictly prohibited"?

And why does Wyatt Wolfe mention "Credit is given to the respective owners of all photographs"?

Felix c 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dan Knott Image

You mind telling me how to put the file source for this image? User:Killswitch Engage [2] I got the image here. What do you think?

"Hello"

Dear Mecu,

"Hello!"

This "hello" was brought to you by,

Users: Psdubow and Cocoaguy

This is a copyrighted "hello" and can not be used by others or redistributed without the express-written consent of both of these users.

If you have any questions or comments about this "hello", please feel free to post a message on Psdubow's and/or Cocoaguy's talk page.

Editor Review

Good morning (GMT); I notice that you have no reviews at your editor review, and I plan to review you soon. If you do want a review from me, give me a nudge at my talk page in a few hours and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 11:19, Thursday December 28 2006 (UTC)

awww...my adoption

i have done numerous edits, but feel that i could be a better and stronger editor. i appreciate you taking me under your wings.The undertow 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mecu - i have comprised a stub about 'legal secretary.' should i put it on my user page while i continue edits, or officially list it for others to revise? any help would be appreciated. The undertow 08:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

did you say "beer+Wikipedia?" no wonder you are my mentor :p The undertow 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

can you help me with car salesman? this article is so poorly written that i would actually rather see it deleted. i cannot assert that i can recreate a better article, but the format alone is deplorable. any ideas? The undertow 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station was closed as keep, but I personally agree with merging/redirecting them. How about starting a new guideline on such things similar to WP:LOCAL? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 06:34Z

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Uni of wales.jpg)

The image was originally used in the template for the university of Wales but somebody deleted it from the template indicating that using the image in that way was not fair use. The template was only used in a handful of institutions that are connected to the university of Wales. If you don't think it would be fair use in the template either, and since it's not being used anywhere else, I have no objections to the image being deleted. (Sloman 11:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Image:Alison-whyte-tamsin-lewis-d.jpg

I can't find a fair use image and she seems to have semi-retired so do not expect any new images —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juntung (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Alison-whyte-tamsin-lewis-d.jpg

I can't find a fair use image and she seems to have semi-retired so do not expect any new images --JuntungWu 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deeping map.PNG

Sorry about that, the image can be deleted. I never got round to using it for my purpose and it is of a low quality anyway. Sorry to have been a bother. Lofty 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass tagging is starting to bother me

Not that I oppose what you are doing (nor support). I feel you are overloading image for deletion process. --Cat out 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my intention to overload IFD. I do try to use alternate methods when they apply, but going through orphaned images, most are classified GDFL but have no encyclopedic value. I don't know what else to do. I could limit myself to only looking at so many pictures per day, but that doesn't seem appropriate. I did think that it might be a good idea for a new CSD category, that orphaned images could be tagged as orphan, the uploader notified and after 90 (or 180, or...?) days, if it's still orphaned, then it's deleted. It would remove it the process from IFD on most OR images. And anyone could look at any of the categories of tagged OR images such that they could de-orphan it. The problem is that the 90 (or whatever) days the orphaned images are there would take a long delay and many would likely complain about the number of days or that we still might delete images that are useful, despite them having lots of time to save them. Anyways, if you have any other input or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. --MECU≈talk 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion: You can move them to commons. A use for them can be found on a variety of projects such as wikinews or wikibooks among others. We are looking for more images on commons after all. --Cat out 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah and btw there are tools to help you move images to commons. --Cat out 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What tools are available? My initial thoughts would be that only images that have value should be used in an article and therefore moved to Wikipedia. I guess there's another line between useful and just completely userful. Anyways, can you give me a link to the tools? Hopefully, they can autotag or something. Thanks.--MECU≈talk 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the tools I use is http://hdbot.velirat.de/ it is a commons uploader. It lets you copy an image to commons from wikipedia and tags the English copy for being a duplicate and even creates a button so you can delete the en copy. You can use all images on commons from en.wiki. This tool requires approval of the bot owner which you can catch on IRC.

I am aware that there are also some python bots doing the task as well although I never used them so I cant really comment on them.

Somewhat usefull images are ok on commons. Granted commons is not a webhost so the images being moved should have a potential value (someones pet dog may have an encyclopedic value (for say wikispecies) or a space shuttles debris (for say a wikinews article)) while not having a value for wikipedia. I haven't checked every image you are working on but I think you know what I mean so I wont bore you off with it. :)

--Cat out 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

some other comment

Sorry, why has my image been listed for deletion? --PopUpPirate 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye no probs nothing personal but I was hoping to use it on River Yarrow articles, uploaded the pic shortly after taking the photo. WP should be grateful for uploaded free use photos, whether they are linked or not :) --PopUpPirate 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be more proactive if you checked peeps carefully uploaded pics, and submitted them to commons if it bothers you so :) --PopUpPirate 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

about Image:0001v.jpg

My understanding is that the comic book was DONATED to the Fed govern, and thus Fed Gov copyright applies. This isn't right? See document context for statement of donation.--Smkolins 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned Finder images

Hi, Mecu. I noted the messages you left me on my talk page, and attempted to rectify the problem. I added fair use rationales to the photos and added them to the Macintosh Finder page: and plan on adding them to other pages where they belong. Please tell me if theres still anything I need to do so that these images wont qualify for deletion: as I feel that they are very good quality images: and shouldnt be taken off because of a technicality or oversite. :)

Thanks, --Alegoo92 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

mac80

its from a pdf file from the city of richmond, its government image, fair use, low res, just a crop

and please dont leave messages at the bottom of my talk page below the section that specifically says, dont leave messages here!qrc2006/email 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Al stewart orange album 1972.jpg)

Re:- Thanks for uploading Image:Al stewart orange album 1972.jpg. I notice the 'image' ...etc...Thank you. MECU≈talk 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi MECU, thanks for the info'. It seems that the image (orignally included in Al Stewart ) has been replaced by another "fair use" item Image:AlStewart.jpg.

The new item is a more recent photo', but not an album cover, so I'm not sure how this fits in with current WIKI"fair use" policy. If the new one's ok from the legal aspect, I believe it's better than the one I uploaded and would have no objections to the latter being deleted. Regards, Wikityke 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC ident images

Hi Mecu, thanks for letting me know about the images. At present, they are not being used in the BBC television idents article since it is in the process of being cleaned up following an AfD nomination. I have removed the images, listed them on a subpage of mine and tagged them as still in use since they are. I would be grateful if you could remove the orfud tags at present; once I have determined exactly which images are superfluous, I will tag them as orphaned fair use myself as I have already been doing. Thanks. Wikiwoohoo 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You do have my word though I accept what you are saying. Wikiwoohoo 18:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RPG image

Image:RPGs.jpg

I guess you missed this:

11th Marine Expeditionary Unit Explosive Ordnance Disposal team members inventory rocket propelled grenade launchers that were stockpiled along with other weapons and ammunition in Najaf, Iraq, by Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, Sept. 3, 2004. DoD photo by Chief Warrant Officer Matthew D. Middleton, U.S. Marine Corps. (Released)

Photo by: CWO2 MATTHEW D. MIDDLETON, 11TH MARINE EXPEDITIONARY UNIT Record ID No. (VIRIN): 040903-M-1947M-030

What part of that is not a source? (and BTW all US gov images are PD) Riddley 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes it necessarily from an internet source? Riddley 19:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and just FYI, generally Marines don't like to be called Navy.  :) Riddley 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The DOD VIRIN number is right there (Visual Information Record Identification Numbers). Anybody can get a copy of the original image. Riddley 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCurrent.jpg

Mecu, The image in question was taken from Robert Newton's The Encyclopedia of Robberies, Heists, and Capers which, as it belongs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is in the public domain as a work by a federal agency. I assumed I'd used the approprite template however if there I'm not sure I understand the specific proplem regarding this image in reference to stating the source and copyright holder. I'd thought a description for its specific use was only for those images which were used under fair use policies whereas, in a public domain photo, an explanation would not be nessessary. I only ask as I'm not sure what changes need to be made to this image. MadMax 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead

Go ahead, the image is no longer needed. However, after leavign the message on my talk page ic ant get rid of this "YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES (LAST CHANGE)" banner from the top of my screen - ive tried everything. Any advice/help? - Doobuzz 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:RQ-9 Predator.jpg

I have removed your request for this image to be deleted as a copyright violation. It was properly tagged as being in the public domain, but the uploader gave the incorrect website of origin. The image was taken by Dick Jones while working for Sandia National Laboratories, a US Government entity under the United States Department of Energy and can be found on the NASA website here. Thanks, and happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Delete My Image

Hi, Mecu,

I am trying to delete an image I uploaded on WikiCommons (mainly because I forgot to rotate it first), but am sort of a Wikipedia novice. The image can be found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Viasacra.jpg

I saw your name on the Images and media for deletion page and was wondering if you could help me out.

Thanks, --MosheA 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Redoaknew.jpg

It is not a copyvio because it is made by the US government and is therefore in the public domain, please review futher and contact me on my talk page if the above is not the case. Thank you, Cbrown1023 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Then make it explicitly clear on the page so another user does not make the same mistake I did. Cbrown1023 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mythical national championship

I saw your post on the talk page for this article. I respect Wikipedia's policy but it is very hard to follow this policy when another user is allowed to comment without regard to this policy. I hope you will understand my sentiment and address this issue. 66.188.79.89 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this, but I feel I am at least entitled to protection based on this policy. If I choose to continue using Wikipedia I will respect this policy, but it is only fair that I am not the only one required to follow it. 66.188.79.89 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

re Richtransvilg.jpg

i dont know the right tag, but im certain fair use applies. its a government agency not a private company, if we can use the coca cola logo we can use an image from city redevelopment plans owed by them for purposes of education not profit especially since there is no alternative available, and cmon Richmond is not gonna sue us for promoting their city.qrc2006/email 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i doubt its copyrighted, i dont know how to write a rationale, allthough i believe i allready did, i dont know how to fix it, i added the closest approximate tag on the list, what tag should i add, theres no general fair use one dude. lil help?qrc2006/email 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:RayDavis.jpg

Hi! You have removed the copyright tag on the Ray Davis photo, saying that it is not a work of the US Federal Gov. Why do you think so? It is a White House photo. Indeed, they do not give the name of the photographer (prresumably, they do not know it), so it is not clear. However, for the 2004 ceremony, they mention that the photos were made by Eric Draper, which is the White House Photo Director. PS. You can answer here, I'm watching the page AdamSmithee 07:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at this image which states their affiliation is not with the White House, then it can't be a federal government photo. I didn't see anything else on the website talking about their copyright status. Could you show me where you say they said the photos were taken by Eric Draper? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a fed gov agency, but the photos were taken in the White House and, at least in 2004, by the White House photographer, which is fed. gov. employee - so they should be public domain. Although they don't detail on who was the photographer for Ray Davis (which is not part of the 2004 photos), I think it is resonable to assume that they didn't bring their own photographer on that occasion. So it should also be public domain. AdamSmithee 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Any thought? AdamSmithee 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your comments got lost in the confusion on the rest of my talk page. Unless we have proof it was by the WH photographer, there are too many other possibilities for the copyright of this image. The location is obvious, but irrelevant. An AP photographer could have taken the image, or another press agency. Any why wouldn't they bring along their own photographer? Unless the copyright stats can be confirmed, we can't have a copyright status. You should e-mail this organization and ask them if they are willing to release the image freely. This page will be of assistance in that effort: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Sorry for the delay again. --MECU≈talk 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Richard Jeppson.gif

Regarding the copyright tag on the photo, I am 100% sure it is a military photo. This has been discussed in the past (if you would look at the history this happened before as well). I personally feel some people are overzelous in terms of removing picture (including this one).

The subject of this article is my grandfather, who served in the Army Air Corp during WWII. I have no doubt that this is a military issued photo, especially given the fact that he is standing in front of the plan that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima Japan in 1945.

My problem is, now this picutre will be deleted within a day or two with absolutely no discussion. This is one of the reasons I'm not contributing to Wikipedia any longers. I am removing the tag, upon leaving this explaination as I feel it explains the situation adequately. Davidpdx 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The conversation was probably on my talk page as well as someone elses. My guess is this is going to get deleted before I get an answer. Anytime I've tried to get an answer about a picture I get nothing in terms of a response. I found the same picture on a military webpage and have emailed someone to see if they can track down the sourcing.

Yes, I probably am very bias. As for my grandfather, contacting him is not something that's as easy as making a phone call. He is traveling for about another week. The other problem is I, myself am not inside the US at this point in time, but working in Korea.

One other option (at least for the time being) would be to use this photo Image:Jeppson Tibbets Van Kirk.jpg. Although it also has Tibbets and Van Kirk in the picture as well, I guess it would work. What do you think? Davidpdx 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. I don't think I'm going to crop the picture. It's a good idea, but I might as well leave them in the picture. He knows both of the men pretty well and has maintained a friendship with them over the years (this is personal knowledge, not something I would add to the article). It would seem a shame to take them out of such a nice picture.

Hopefully the person I emailed (It looked like an Air Force email address) will contact me and give me at least a clue where to start. I think the military is going to have to give permission for its use more then likely. I'll add a note to the talk page of the article outlining what I'm doing and that this picture is a replacement for the other one and that once I get permission I can add the one of him in front of the plane back (maybe I'll still leave this one if it seems relevent). Thanks for your help. Davidpdx 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Beatrix, Cartin, and Pembroke

Have the request to delete those PNG(s) carried out. They serve no use. Though one could be however used to show EVE Online I'll put one of them there to show the character creation and you have the rest deleted. Not sure which will use yet, probably Cartin.PNG. --William Pembroke^(talk) 15:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale template?

Mecu, is there a template that requests the addition of Fair use rationale to a FU image uploaded before the May 2006 date? I know to use {{Frn}} for FU images uploaded after May 2006, but I'm looking for something to add to images uploaded before that date.--NMajdan•talk 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Up for IFD? Surely not. The image I'm wanting FUC is a university logo that has the correct FU template but not rationale. Surely I shouldn't put it up for deletion.--NMajdan•talk 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That script, should it fill in everything when it opens up the tabs? On my computer, it opens the various pages in new tabs but doesnt fill them out and doesn't submit. I'll keep looking into it.--NMajdan•talk 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd. I'm using Firefox 2 as well and I also already had those req'd scripts. Still nothing.--NMajdan•talk 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be there. At the very top.--NMajdan•talk 22:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you found it on my monobook.js file. That "improved" one you linked me to is the one I originally had in my .js file but I switched to the other one when I saw it was what you had. So, I've tried both.--NMajdan•talk 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget that.--NMajdan•talk 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that actually worked. Now to go back through my js file and figure out what's interfering. I've got a lot of stuff on mine I want to keep. Thanks for the help.--NMajdan•talk 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. One of my favs is the personallinks one. You can add various pages to the 'navigation' box on the left side. Good stuff. Also, adding the UTC time to the top and when you click it, it purges the page.--NMajdan•talk 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it was just the ordering. I had the required addons at the top and the imagedelete script at the bottom. I just moved the imagedelete script to the top right below to two addons and now it works.--NMajdan•talk 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this script is very useful. Makes it a lot easier.--NMajdan•talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Soso

Hi, since you are well aware of the wikipedia policies about the photographs, I would like to ask you how does the wikimedia commons work? For example, I have some nice pictures of Georgia, which is from my own camera and I also have some beautiful pictures by Paata, a Georgian photographer, who granted me the permission to use his pictures on wikipedia, but probably he wants some rights to be resitricted. Please drop me a line if you find time for it. Regards, SosoMK 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw II Picture

Yeah, go ahead, remove it. I'm not using it.--CyberGhostface 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

USGS

That program is a hog. It locked up my machine and forced a reboot. Wahkeenah 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• All I did was click on the link, and my PC ground to a halt. I'm not touching that program again. Google Maps is efficient by comparison (and it ain't, in general). Wahkeenah 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

That cat was db-authored by me due to WP:NAMCON (Category names of users or some such) issue back whenever. If you have the time to hunt them down and clear the links, feel free, as it's not a current page. I need to housekeep most all of those tagged pages now that I'm getting back up to speed (I've been away on RL matters) and will tend to it in due course. Thanks for your concern, but the redlink is not harmful, however untidy. // FrankB 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

On the 2007 BCS National Championship page, was I the "new user who probably doesn't know better," and if so, what didn't I know better about. I simply updated scores, nothing more, nothing less...Minkus2816 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Minkus2816 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:An IDF M109 self-propelled howitzer fires into Southern Lebanon.png

I just renamed the image, please ask the original uploaded (User:Rangeley). --Cat out 11:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How are you hunting for these images btw? --Cat [[User talk:Cool

Cat|out]] 11:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use on Alodia.jpg

Would it be alright to just delete the image in question? I don't want to have anything to do with that article anymore...for personal reasons. I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit weird. ^^; Silentaria 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Black Parade GA help

Thank you for providing some help on the talk page of The Black Parade article, however can you please help me out with something? I would like to help the part with POV in the Reception section, however, I'm not sure how I would approach this. Can you please tell me a direction I'd be able to take with this? Thank you!  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Update on Morris Jeppson Image

I recieved a nice response from the Air Force, but I'm still not sure to go about doing this so this is done properly. I'm hoping to get it fixed so the picture won't be deleted. Anyway here is there response:

Thank you for your e-mail. All photographs located on the Agency homepage are considered to be in the public domain. You are welcome to use it, we just ask that you give the Agency credit for the photograph.

MRS LYNN GAMMA HQ AFHRA/RSA

The website was: http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/photo_galleries/509_composite_group_history/Captions/039_Lt_Jeppson.htm

Can you give me some help in terms of what I should do? Thanks! Davidpdx 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..I really didn't understand how to do all that, but I think I have a better idea now. I uploaded the other (slightly larger) image you recommended as a new file (had a hard time because the file extension was diffrent. I'll just let the old one get deleted. Can you take a look at the image licensing and see if I did it correctly? Image:Morris Jeppson.jpg Thanks.. Davidpdx 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Helmet in infoboxes

I appreciate your help with all of the image procedures. This kind of stuff is new to me, so your responses were definitely informative. It may take me awhile to get this all squared away, so I may enlist the help of others on this. Don't worry about your earlier response; you seem like someone who is very knowledgeable, that's why I went to you with this question. By the way, how do we edit the infobox to include both the logo and helmet? I have no clue. Thanks again.Football79 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template |

Mecu, I took a look at your template under development and I made some changes and I think it is looking much better. It took many tests so I have quite a few edits in the history. The only thing I could not resolve was the last example where there is no score. The italic/bold tags (''') are getting messed up for some reason so the record is in italics with an apostrophe before the record and an apostrophe is showing in the score field. Don't know why this is yet. Have a look and let me know what you think.--NMajdan•talk 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:My Sandbox

Thanks for removing those fair use images. I completely forgot to do that when I copied the article to work on.--Isotope23 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern

I'm doing well, I've been able to jump into translations and linguistic related stuff. Thanks again. --Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me||what i've done||e|} 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anton Balasingham.jpg

I have added the source: www.tamilnet.com for the above image.

But still I am not sure whether I have done it properly. Could you help me on this matter.Thanks.Rajsingam 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But the www.tamilnet.com has some internal problem. I couldn't open it. Can't you extend the time until the Tamilnet could be accessible.Rajsingam 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. But I hope I will provide the HTML tag at the earliest possible. By the by I went through your user profile, there you have mentioned about your distant German ancestry. I am going to publish a book on "German Memories in Asia". You can get more information about me and the book at Rajkumar Kanagasingam.Rajsingam 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Amiri Baraka.jpg

Please explain how this image is a copyright violation of the Creative Commons license. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting a CC-NC-ND image on Wikipedia is by no means a copyright violation, because neither commercial gain nor creation of derivative works has happened. It is merely against Wikipedia policy. {{Imagevio}} is simply the incorrect template to use. {{PUInonfree}} is. Go and read Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Offer

Hello!

Thanks for your response. Somehow, I get the idea that you like football.  :)

So do I. I'll be happy to accept your offer of adoption. Where do we start?

--LtlKty 05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT

Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.

Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks

Hey, thanks for stopping by Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It looks like you're a little confused about the template syntax. The sample parameter should only be the URL of a page using Wikipedia content. You don't need to paste in the actual content. The URL parameter in turn should be only the main URL of the mirror. See Template:Mirror for more info. Thanks again. Superm401 - Talk 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TicketCity is clearly still using Wikipedia content. For example, the "COLORADO AVALANCHE TEAM HISTORY:" section of http://www.ticketcity.com/Sports-Tickets/Hockey-Tickets/NHL-Tickets/NHL-Western-Conference-Tickets/NHL-Northwest-Division-Tickets/Colorado-Avalanche-Tickets.html is from Colorado_Avalanche#Franchise_history. You cited this page yourself originally. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot seems to have a glitch

Photos

• Image:Schadler robert.jpg
• Image:Evans allen.jpg
• Image:Rowan ruth.jpg
• Image:Hunter jon blair.jpg
• Image:Sypolt dave.jpg

Were all labled by your bot as unsourced yet, each photo was labled as to its source with the text; Official Press Release Photo from WV Legislature. Press Release photos are public domain and for General Public Use. They were labled with the GFDL which should be correct. Sourced and labled, what more it your bot looking for? --71Demon 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

These are sourced the same

* Image:Betty Ireland, West Virginia Secretary of State.jpg

* Image:Gov Joe Manchin.jpg

Labled as the press release photos. What are you looking for? --71Demon 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, see User_talk:Pd_THOR#Your_Bot_has_a_glitch_also. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair Use Images on Wikipedia

I'm sorry. I understand now. No need to be so harsh, if you were. Marcus2 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, William E. Davis, was selected for DYK!

On January 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William E. Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hey. I strongly suggest you read WP:MUSIC and especially WP:CSD before embarking on another CSD tagging mission. You have requested speedy deletion to not only to bands that assert notability, but also meet several of the criteria on WP:MUSIC. Thanks, Prolog 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

CSD#A7 is not valid, if there is any kind of real assertion of notability (record label, notable band members, tour information). I don't know how many of the ones you tagged meet WP:MUSIC (I assume almost all), but none of them can be speedily deleted. Also, lack of references does not qualify an article for speedy deletion. I have no idea which administrator asked you to do such mass-tagging, but the admin in question does not seem to understand WP:CSD. Thanks, Prolog 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Image help

Hey, Mecu. I need to replace the fair-use image on Adrian L. Peterson and I found one on flickr, but after reading the image copyright section, I'm not sure it would be considered "Free." Can you please check it out and let me know if its usable? The image is at [3]. Thanks. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like NMajdan already found one and I just hadn't seen it yet. Thanks for your help. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well it looks like the one I uploaded may have to be deleted. The photographer changed the license on my after I notified him that I used it on Wikipedia. He even said it was ok to use but he still changed the license. I notified him of the issue, so we'll see if it stays. I may notify the photographer of that picture cause it is really good.--NMajdan•talk 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, how do I prove that the image was a CC license when I uploaded it if he has changed it? You can see the photo here and where I said I used the same license he used and then he said "it will be fine." Then he changed it.--NMajdan•talk 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! He changed it back. Now how to I go about getting it "verified" in case he changes it again?--NMajdan•talk 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaiser High School logo image

I see you tagged the image for deletion. I believe it has been tagged correctly now. It is a logo of secondary school and is used under fair use. You can remove your deletion tag, now. Thanks! In the future, it might help new users if you suggested where they might find more information rather than just telling them they are wrong.Gurp13|[[User talk:Gurp13|Talk]] 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not upset, perhaps I was frustrated. But, when someone twice tells you, "No, you're wrong." then I think they should also maybe offer a suggestion as to how they might find the information or at least a general area to look in. I know it's my responsibility as the uploader to provide the information, but I guess I think that if you're going to be an editor, you might offer some assistance, too. Clearly you had an opinion that the logo I was not properly tagged. My guess is that you could have very easily suggested I look at "logos" as a category. If I had not found it and the logo got deleted would that have been a good outcome? I'm not asking you to tag it for me, but a word in the right direction would have been nice. Especially after you told me twice I was wrong.Gurp13|[[User talk:Gurp13|Talk]] 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to adoption questions

It took me a while to answer because I wanted to give it some thought. You asked really good questions because they caused me to stop and reflect on exactly why I joined. I want my association with Wikipedia to be a long one so I would like to be careful and considerate about how I grow into the community. I've been exploring and found that there is lot to do as a member, just about all of which isn't obvious to the unregistered user. Quite honestly, I'm a bit (understatement) overwhelmed by the scope of the work that needs to be done. I can see that the scope will easily grow as Wikipedia continues to develop. So, to answer your questions:

What I want to get out of adoption? I'd like to learn how to participate well in the community - how to contribute in such a way that reduces the overall scope of work and increases the value of Wikipedia.

What I want to accomplish here at Wikipedia? I would like to eventually become a researcher and help with editing and refining the more challenging problem articles. Maybe I will even introduce a few. Practically though, I should start with something like correcting punctuation, grammar, spelling, links, etc. Can you recommend a good place to look to find simple edits of that type?

What I like to do here on Wikipedia? Read!! The articles I have been interested in are well written and linked. I hadn't yet come across many that require help.

What are my problems at Wikipedia? I haven't yet encountered any.

The first thing I've done is correct the problem I created on your page. It is now just a title. Is there a way to link to a specific page section (similar to # in HTML A tabs)?

Thanks again for working with me. I'll be sure to ask for help and also for review of edits that I do. I'll be sure to change them first in my sandbox. LtlKty 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) ^talk

Reference to Buffalo Soldier photograph

In reference to the Buffalo Soldier photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddle_and_accessories.JPG you can find the source: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Smithsonian_GIFS/BUFLO1_19209.gif I've already added the source in the image.
--Signaleer 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Image:Rebecca Twigley - Brownlow.jpg for deletion

You tagged w:Image:Rebecca Twigley - Brownlow.jpg for deletion, claiming that it was as replaceable fair use image. The image already had a detailed fair use rationale, which explained why the image is irreplaceable with a free use image. Could you please explain on the talk page why you believe the existing rationale is invalid? Tntnnbltn 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I knew the image was likely to be questioned, which is why I made sure the fair use rationale was up to scratch. I don't know if it'd be possible to get a photo of the dress; a newspaper article I read said they were thinking of featuring it on a public display, but I don't know if this actually went ahead or not. I'll look into it. --Tntnnbltn 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Safe_conduct.jpg

"Thanks for uploading Image:Safe_conduct.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please." Is this text and licensing - Original scan of military leaflet

insufficient for you? Or do you mean the jpeg file? I imported and scanned the original. And I came by the original the hard way, I carried a bag of those all through Vietnam while in the employ of the United States Government.

Luxomni 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

H. I was wondering if you had given any thought to becoming an admin. You certainly seemed qualified having seen you around. If yu're interested, let me know and I can create the RfA nomination.--Wizardman 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I had sent something to Wizardman, so his talk was on my watchlist. When I saw your thing about running for RFA, I was startles the you weren't an admin already! Just a little advice, though they may make an exception for someone with your contributions, many people oppose or go neutral for not a long time on the project (about < 1 year). --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright notice

User talk: FactChkr has removed the Image copyright notice you had left himremoved Image copyright notice you had placed on his/her page and has been reverted.Just thought you would like to know.--  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your deletions in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Mecu, I have addressed your edits to Minneapolis, Minnesota in the Village Pump (assistance). Sorry I am not able to discuss your edits in multiple places. -Susanlesch 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mecu/br.js

Thanks for the railway station edit. I tried to install your BR tool; pasted the code into my monobook.js, bypassed the cache ... bounced the browser ... cannot see the BR link near watch. Any advice? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Nope, still nothing. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yup, I'd sussed the need to edit ... still no joy. Happy to be your guinea-pig, equally happy if you want to drop the subject. I just thought I'd zap the BRs in the rest of the railway station articles. (Of course, you have that facility ;) --Tagishsimon (talk)

Bingo! And tested on UK railway stations - Y. Thanks. I'll get on & put it to use.

Good advice - will follow

Thanks for the advice. Guess you noticed the article I pasted in my sandbox. It also appears to need references to the Wiktionary. Somewhere, I saw an article about setting up accounts on all sister projects. I'll use that and get started...--LtlKty 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Image:JesseVentura.jpg

When I uploaded this image, Jesse Ventura was Governor of Minnesota. The State website stated somewhere, that content is in the public domain. However, it would take too much time for me to try to find that statement again as the website is quite vast. In addition, I believe this image has been tweaked and modified many times since I uploaded it. So do what you want with this image. --Dennis Fernkes 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Reservation_in_IIT.PNG

Hi,

I have no objection to the deletion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WPCFB Talk Page

Saw you switched the shortcut around. I don't know how it looks on your monitor, but on monitors with 1024x768 resolution (such as my work machine I do most of my work on), it does not look good: [4]. Its always best to see what your changes will look like on this resolution as it is the most popular resolution of current monitors. I just thought I'd let you know as you can take whatever action you feel necessary.--NMajdan•talk 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks better there than it did where I originally placed it. Thanks.--NMajdan•talk 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:220px-IanStanley.jpg)

I did not upload this.

I worked on the code.

trezjr 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Images

Please delete all orphan images that you can find, This pictures were uploaded by mistake. Thank you.Angel,Isaac 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brick_screenshot.png

Delete away. It was used in an article but it was replaced by a better one. I just forgot about it Oskar 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Orphaned fair use image

Thank you for your message. I didn't realize this image was removed from the article (and no reason was given for its removal). That said, the replacement image seems okay, and this image is a gif file (which I now understand is forbidden) so I don't mind if it is deleted. Is there something I should do to delete it? Best regards. Jogurney 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

National Titles

MECU: Before taking this idea to the entire group at WP:CFB, I thought I'd run the idea by a couple of guys that seem to be level-headed, have experience in the Project and are telented designers. I have become convinced that we need a fully-integrated solution to infoboxes and football championship article. I think that if we can give some semblance of order to the football championship article, then the infobox problem will solve itself. My idea is to redo the main year-by-year table to fully report all claims to the National Title in each year, but designate the "Wire Champ" and the "Consensus Champ" each year. Then the infoboxes would reference "Wire Champs" and "Consensus Champs" and tie back to the year-by-year table. Take a look at National Champ project and you will see a few sample years that illustrate how this would work. The sources for the poll information will be the NCAA and College Football Data Warehouse. Let me know what you think about the idea and, if you like it, how it can be improved. Also, you are more than welcome to fool around with my test table. Thanks--Tlmclain | Talk 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear. First, I am not trying to be exclusionary in the least I just (a) need help with getting the table or template right and (b) was asking for an initial impression of the concept. In other words, if your reaction to the concept was that it was sheer idiocy, then I would not want either of us to waste time on this (I also recognize that even if you think that the concept has merit, the Project may well still reject it when it is presented). In short, I think it still needs work and refinement before it is presented. Without wishing to exclude anybody, I was trying to quickly explain the concept/vision so you could better help with (a) and (b).

As to the concept itself, my cryptic reference was to the on-going debate that started with what National Title information should be included in the team infobox and then seemed to expand to the football championship article. In watching and participating in the debate, I have come to several conclusions. #1 Edit wars related to the National Title entry in the team infoboxes and related to counting “recognized” titles (see, this example) seem to center on the same problem of definition. #2 There are a number of different ways to count national titles being employed across college football pages, including Wire Titles in the team infoboxes, some kind of blended approach in the By Year table in the football championship article and the National Championship Foundation selection in the Most national championships section of the football championship article. #3 There is currently no one source on Expedia which lists all teams selected by all polls in all years. #4 A table that sets forth all teams selected by all polls in all years AND makes an effort to logically identify wire and consensus titles AND is then used to populate team infoboxes could solve a lot of problems.

With all this in mind, I set about to try to create a sample of the master table that I have in mind with my National Champ project. Although it currently only includes three sample years, I believe that it demonstrates many of the possible yearly results. My vision for the master table would be to list every team that received a #1 vote from the polls recognized by the NCAA and CFDW in every year from 1869 until now. In each year, the table would designate which teams won the Wire Title and which teams won the “consensus” title (currently proposed as teams with 25% or more of the polls in a given year, but easily changed once we get input from the Project). This master table would replace the By Year table in the football championship article and be used to create the other tables in the article like the one in the Most national championships section. The next step would be to modify the team infoboxes to either have two lines – Wire Titles & Consensus Titles or one line with Wire & Consensus Titles with links back to the master table. If folks wanted to, we could even include “claimed” Titles.

Hopefully, you now have a clearer understanding of my “vision.” Any help, guidance or counsel that you can provide would be most appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. First - a confession - I don't know how to make the orange and yellow look like the Coach year-by-year. I tried copying the code but must have been doing something wrong. Would you please fix it? Your suggestion about providing percentages is a good one - I had already been toying with something like that, but your idea is better. I hear your concerns about the 25% rule and believe that I have some answers to that question, but will save that entire discussion for the Project (by the way, CFDW uses the 25% rule and I don't think they ever have more than 2 "consensus" titles). Finally, from your observation of edit wars, if you know of any years that seem to be particularly contested, I'd like to put them in the sample table so that people can see what the outcome would be.--Tlmclain | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Cap1.jpg

Hello! I had originally written to the film's director about using the screen cap and was given permission to display it, but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the page anymore. Is there a way for me to remove it, or should I just leave it until the 26th? (Sorry, still a newbie with the whole image thing!) Thanks. Romdoll 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

orphaned image

Hi there. I saw your message on my talk page regarding Image:NXLogo.jpg. Yeah, it's an orphan. However, it's an orphan because pilotguy screwed up. Please wait until the... discussion is played out. Thanks. ... aa:talk 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)