User talk:Twthmoses

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

Clockwork Soul 04:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kalaallisut language in Denmark?

Hi, I noticed in Kalaallisut language you've added it to the [[Category:Languages of Denmark]] category. I'm not aware that the Greenlandic language would be spoken in Denmark - do you have any evidence for this? It may be true the other way round (Danish spoken by some people in Greenland). I'm happy to be proved wrong of course! Thanks -- munt fish 12:02, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, cancel that, I've just looked it up on Ethnologue [1]. Thanks -- munt fish 12:05, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Hi, I already knew that Greenlandic was spoken in mainland Denmark, but so is another two dozen languages and it was not my reason for including it. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and as such Greenlandic is a language in the realms of Denmark. The exact status of Greenland (and the Faeroe Islands) has long been a bla bla subject. Neither the constitution of 1849 nor the redraft of 1953 explains in clear terms what the exact relationship of the different parts of the ‘Kingdom of Denmark’ is, and a term comprising all three countries has long been missing. There is only the ‘Kingdom of Denmark’ and since that equals Denmark, Greenlandic is a language in Denmark. To make an example, you can shove English, Walsh and Scottish in under the UK. What is missing is the term ‘UK’ in the Danish-Greenland- Faeroe Islands relationship. There is only ‘Kingdom of Denmark’, but that as said equals ‘Denmark’, which is itself only a part in the realm. Its not unlike taking England, Scotland and Wales, make a UK out of it and then not name it ‘UK’ but ‘England’. Twthmoses 04:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

M1911 Pistol image

Hi... you made a comment on the M1911 Pistol image, that the current tag is in-appropriate. I disagree. No image is 'free' if it starts with copyright, and thus the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat tag is not for free images as you state on the page, it is... well for copyrighted images. Copyright means that exclusive rights are by the author. The author can grant rights to whomever he want on any term that he wants – and that is exactly what this tag is made for. The image is copyrighted, but free for use provided that you blab blab blab bla... that is what this tag is for and exactly how it is used on that image. Btw I am the creator of the image. Twthmoses 04:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} puts the image in Category:Conditional use images, which is a subcategory of Category:Free images. I agree that it isn't clear what kinds of restrictions are allowed after the "provided that"; there ought to be a page somewhere discussing it. As you're the creator, perhaps you'd be willing to license it as GFDL? The only difference would be that the image could be modified (and modifications would have to remain free). One hypothetical reason why allowing modifications is a good thing: someone might want to, for example, crop the bullets to use in a different article. dbenbenn | talk 04:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the tag, this IS a copyright tag and there should of course not be any restrictions to the tag – that defeats the very purpose of the tag. There is only one that can make restrictions and that is the copyright holder. I believe is the very purpose of the tag. This is more of a misplaced category issue.

If an image is free (in the true sense of the word), it should not be using this tag, because copyrighted images are not free images, even when the author says you can use it for any purpose. They are copyrighted and the author can grant you use of it, depending on bla bla bla.. Twthmoses 15:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you have a misconception about copyright. Almost all images used here, including GFDL licensed images, are copyrighted. An image is "free" if it has been released under a certain type of copyright license. Among other conditions, a free license has to allow modification and commercial use. The tag {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} is intended to be a free copyright license. If you aren't willing to release your images under a free license, then you shouldn't upload them, and we'll have to delete them. That would be a shame, since Image:P38 AC44.jpg, for example, is quite good, and would be very difficult to replace. dbenbenn | talk 16:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|it remains unmodified (except re-size), credit is given and copyright is attributed.}} is basically equivalent to {{cc-by-nd-2.0}}. WP:ICT says "Do not upload images for which [this tag] applies". dbenbenn | talk 18:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I’m in disagreement with that. No matter how you turn it, something copyrighted is not free, unless the copyright holder specified turns over the rights, - which is the case with most images on wiki I guess, by applying some form of the PD tag.

There is CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat and CopyrightedFreeUse. What is the purpose of the first (and even the 2nd, is that not borderline close to PD?) if you can't provide any text that means anything? It is ok to write you have to credit the author, but it is not ok to write you can't modify the image? I persume 'remains unmodified' is the problem. Is having to credit the author over and over again every time you use it, not a image restriction too? Is it not an equal hard restriction? And how much modifications can be done before you don’t have to credit the author anymore, because its not the same image anymore?

Btw how does one even go around deleting images again? I see no option for this? Does one apply the delete tag?Twthmoses 18:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You realise that the entire Wikipedia is copyrighted, and is free, right? Most images here do not use the {{PD}} tag.

It is ok to write you have to credit the author, but it is not ok to write you can't modify the image?

That's right, requiring credit is okay; disallowing modifications isn't.

And how much modifications can be done before you don’t have to credit the author anymore, because its not the same image anymore?

If you license your image under the GFDL, the answer is that you always have to be credited, no matter how much the image gets modified. In particular, the "image history" has to be copied along with the image wherever it's used.

If you decide you want an image of yours deleted, you can write

at the image description page. But I hope you don't decide to do that. dbenbenn | talk 21:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Wikipedia is copyrighted?? Is it not the direct opposite? If one reads the sites 'copyright' it says it’s the concept of ‘copyleft’, Anyway there definitely need to be some clear definition of what is and what is not allowed in this tag. I do consider my images free, cause you can use them commercial as well as none commercial anywhere you see fit, just can’t modify them (except resize).

Where can one billboard such a subject so many more voices join the discussion? It would be nice with a 100% clear use of this tag. Twthmoses 04:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyleft is a form of copyright, in which most rights are specifically given away. Notice the first paragraph of that article specifically mentions modifications.

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. That page gets a fair amount of attention. I've asked some related questions at Commons:Commons talk:Copyright tags#What is free content exactly?. dbenbenn | talk 05:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danish Municipalities

Hi,

I just noticed that you've added separate pages for many of the Danish municipalities, and I think that's great, but I wanted to let you know that the singular noun form of the word in English corresponding to the Danish kommune is 'municipality', not 'municipal', which is the adjective form. I've tried to make this correction for the page on Vejle municipality, but I wanted to let you know about the rest of them as well.

--Dzhebi 00:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. About the spelling. Well my "Gyldendals Røde Ordbog" Dansk/Engelsk says that “Kommune” is municipal, while “Kommuner” or “Kommunen” is municipality. (r) or (n) at the end is the same as “The” in front in English, like the municipality has blab blab.

Vejle municipality would then be Vejle Kommunen or Vejle Kommuner, both grammatical incorrect in Danish. If the book is incorrect when would one then use Municipal? Twthmoses 02:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to my copy of Gyldendals Røde Ordbog -- Dansk/Engelsk, the noun kommune is translated as "municipality", while the adjective "municipal" is kommunal in Danish. Of course, then, kommunen would translate to "the municipality" and kommuner to "municipalities" (and kommunerne to "the municipalities"). Perhaps you are confused because kommune can be used in Danish compound words with the sense of "municipal", as in kommunebibliotek, "municipal library". But I assure you, as a native English speaker, that "municipal" in English is exclusively an adjective, and therefore "Vejle municipal" is grammatically incorrect. The correct translation of Vejle kommune is "Vejle Municipality" or "Municipality of Vejle".

--Dzhebi 21:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category:Danish Prime Ministers

As far as I can see this category is redundant; the list at list of Prime Ministers of Denmark covers it, and is more informative. So before you add the category to more articles, I should tell you I am thinking of WP:TFD'ing it. Thue | talk 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is funny I was actually thinking the same, however i'm not fully sure that it is redundant. I like the cat. system, lists are good, but I LIKE the cat. system. I like the overview a cat. gives, while lists can sometimes be more difficult to read IMHO. I'm not sure yet... Twthmoses 19:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Denmark

Hallo Twthmoses, Since I take care of some flag related articles in the german speaking WP, I've read your very interesting arcticle Flag of Denmark. I've a question concerning the name Splitflag and Orlogsflag. Are these the danish names of this flags, or is it just the description in english? (I'm not sure because the word orlog is a obsolete term for war in german, which is very similar to danish in some points)

Grüße Achim

You are indeed correct, orlog means war (or battle or service). It is the Danish name of the naval flag (Orlogsflaget). Orlog is used in many places in the Danish military. Ex the book Danish soldiers receives after service, and have been doing so since the early 1900, is to this day called Orlogsbog(en) (the Orlog book). Many Danish servicemen mistakes orlog with orlov (meaning, off duty), as they are spoken identical, thinking their orlogsbog, is an “off duty book, where it actually is a “war-book”.

It is quite likely (highly likely I think) that the word originates from German, but I really have no idea from where the word comes. Twthmoses 13:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bantik

Hi, Do you have any references for this word in Slavic? I've had some weak Google confirmation but wonder if the actual langage can be pinpointed? Dlyons493 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hans Island

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! The news report you removed from the Hans Island page also exists on Current events. Do you think it should be removed from there as well? Zoe 21:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No?, why that? btw thnaks for the welcome, but I have been here for a while :) (moved this entry to the talk page) Twthmoses 22:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, put my comment on the wrong page. No, I was just wondering if it isn't factual in the Hans Island article, it isn't factual on Current events, either. Zoe 22:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well what I think about the article is just me. I think it stinks and grossly misleads, purposely. That aside, my personal opinion of a news article has no place on wiki. It is still a news article, and thus is a very valid candidate to be on a current news page. I would never have added it, but I would never delete it either. It is news and belongs in Current news. Taking the info from an article and placing it into the subject it talks about, that is another matter Twthmoses 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Image:HKH Prinsen KFOR1.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:HKH Prinsen KFOR1.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Simons

Thanks for your attention to this article. I hope to find some math enthusiasts here that can 1] clean up the academic portion, both his student and professor efforts, and 2] make sense of the math/physics/geometry accomplishments so that they are a] credible to scientists and b] meaningful to a layman. If you can spread the word among them, great. Hope you enjoy the article -- he is a very interesting man (I used to work for him). paul klenk 21:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gesta Danorum

(My earlier post was mistaken: it is March 15, the Ides of March, if the colophon reads impressit in inclyta Parrhisorum academia Iodocus Badius Ascensius Idibus Martiis. MDXIIII. Supputatione Roman.) --Wetman 20:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans island 1983

Please advise your fax number so that I can send you material re the attempt to take hans island in August 1983 to my email address: jmo800@yahoo.com also- do you have any idea who I can contact in Copenhagen or what archive to go to to find out what frigate was in Thule harbour in August 1983? Many thanks, namsham

Entomologists

Good work. Could you add Swiss (Switzerland) Entomologists sometime please? Notafly

Westermann

Many thanks. Have made some very necessary text changes at your suggestion. Best wishes from foggy Ireland.Notafly 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the kings (and tomb articles)

Good work – thanks for tidying these up. Do you have any ideas for the Valley of the Kings article itself? I am going to see whether I can get it to FAC standard. Markh 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for categorizing articles

Hi Twthmoses thanks for categorizing all the articles about Danish comedians, you're doing a great piece of work! --Snailwalker | talk 01:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for categorizing articles related to "Classical writers of Egypt history".

Tak for rettelsen

Tusind tak for rettelsen her. -- Fyslee 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not message me

Please do not message me. I find your ravings annoying. Catstail 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I more would like to, unfortunately wiki policy states that I have to warn you when you are vandalising, thus I will have to “message” you more if you keep doing it. Twthmoses 11:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly vandalising Flemming Rose

{Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Nice going Hi., you do realize that this is the wrong tag to apply on me, since I’m not adding any information, only removing your un-sourced and unverifiable insertions (going on 8 days now). If you think I’m a vandal there are other better tags to use. Of course we both know that you are only doing this cause I applied the tag to you and some of your cohorts of anonymous ip’s. You know what?, I’m gonna keep this tag here, as a reminder, in fact I’m goona make this little space a living record of you and your cohort of new accounts and anonymous ip’s, so I can keep a track on you. I’ll bet its gonna be long in the end. Twthmoses 12:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catstail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and all his currently known puppets acounts
Ronam2298 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.134.249.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.134.245.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
60.225.187.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
60.228.43.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.229.223.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Possible accounts
Kembali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Namelesshusker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Egypt

My apologies for the mistake. I have a list of articles that I added that category to and can fix them. Thank you for your contributions and the note.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-19 21:11Z

I fixed Category:Valley of the Kings and will take care of the rest as well. Again, my apologies and also I'm sorry for wasting your editing time.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-19 21:18Z

Nothing to worry about. I have done this myself before :( Twthmoses 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cartoons - Q on talk page.

Special Pages - (in the tool box to the left) then Pages with most revisons. THe Cartoons are the 25th moste edidted page. Rich Farmbrough 23:00 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:Danmark_flag_test_004.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Danmark_flag_test_004.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Danmark flag test 001.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Danmark flag test 001.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Danmark flag test 002.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Danmark flag test 002.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Danmark flag test 003.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Danmark flag test 003.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bjørnene - eller jeg dræber dem!

Hello Twthmoses. I noticed that you are among the very few who has contributed to the article Red Bjørnene. So I believe that I should inform you that I have nominated that article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Bjørnene. Bertilvidet 19:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CZ-75 from iraq.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:CZ-75 from iraq.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-SCEhard T 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Forsvarsministeriet.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Forsvarsministeriet.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I did not pay any attention to someone editing my sandbox page and blew away your edits three times. <blush> Thank you for catching my error I have fixed it for good. -Todd 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately Seeking Name: Classical mediators of ancient Egypt

Denial of historic facts. Please check vote. A suggested Name is needed.

This note came to you because you have showed a related background in an earlier comment. Regards.--Connection 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odense Kommunes vaaben.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Odense Kommunes vaaben.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and trademark law

Hej Twthmoses! It's always good to see a Scandinavian editor around... I know one of your images has been put on IFD and you've made a comment about trademark law. The situation is rather complicated, unfortunately, and a bit confusing. Trademark has nothing to do with copyright: well, they are both part of intellectual property law, but TM does not affect (C). Similary, the commercial restrictions imposed by national or regional law do not the copyright status of an image. Therefore it is possible for there to be two images of a trademarked crest, where one is copyright (usually to the creator) and unfree, while the other is a "free" image (the creator has released the relevant rights). Like I said, it's a bit confusing! TheGrappler 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not about the difference between copyright and trademark, this is about whether its legal to keep these images on Commons. I have no problem with the upload getting deleted, just to get it out of the way; I have a problem with it getting replaced with an image that I believe is a direct copyright violation. This is why this image is gettting deleted, right? - replacing a "fair use /logo" image, with a "free" image.

According to acceptable licenses on Commons;

Republication and distribution must be allowed - failed
Publication of derivative work must be allowed -failed
Commercial use of the work must be allowed - failed

must not apply

Noncommercial/Educational use only – applies
Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses - applies

This image has failed near all criteria for being on Commons, thus I cannot agree with that it replaces an image on Wiki, where it is allowed to be located. I’m aware that maybe some will argue that this is a derivative work, and the very artwork is made by a 3rd person thus it is free. But this is not a derivative work; it is the exact reproduction of the CoA that failed all the above criteria, thus that 3rd person that made it has zero right or authority to release it to free use. I’m also aware that there are a lot of other logos, symbols and CoA on commons that likewise completely fails above criteria’s, and that is why I personally refuse to upload to common, as I see it as a massive copyright infringement hole. Just my 10-cents Twthmoses 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs

Thanks for your note. I plan to review all ISBN-13 articles tonight. Rich Farmbrough 10:53 31 August 2006 (GMT).

Tartupaluk

In future, please do not place content relating to the Principality of Tartupaluk in the Satire section of the Hans Island article without providing verification. Contrary to your characterizations, the only references you have posted thusfar indicate that Tartupalummiut independence is not satirical. We have had to alter your changes twice now. Tartupaluk

Heheh That is just funny. This is pure satirical as there is no such things as the Principality of Tartupaluk! It is just as comical as if I would invent, say the Kingdom of Hanso Ilandowhich right now. And for the record you did not revert me twice now, as I only did the move once, another user reverted the whole things, and re-placed (and rightful so) it into the satire section. For all I care he could have left it entirely off. You put it on the page in the first place, and the only reason it even has an option of staying on the page is because the is satire section. This is never going to be in any other place. Now I see you removed it fully from the page – go right ahead, in fact I salute it.Twthmoses 18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWTHMOSES

You are an evil little man. You vandalize my entries - I revert yours to original versions that you vandalized. I did not vandalize you entry - I saved other entries that you vandalized.

Heheh, I have not a clue what you are on about. I wonder if you are aware that all your actions are logged, and childish and lying accusation like that is easy disproved. I just need to click here Livingdone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I can see all you are doing and whatever changes you make. But you keep having fun and ruin your user name. Twthmoses 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tartupaluk is a legal state, even if an unrecognized one. Wikipedia talks about other unrecognized nations, why not Tartupaluk? What about the entries you made to the pages I recently reverted? I have a right to change them back, and anyway - where do you get your proof on these claims you make?

No Tartupaluk is not a state, it’s a name used by a guy for his “project” in his basement. That unfortunately does not make a state. As for the other part, you can do whatever you like and take the consequence for that. Btw 142.59.159.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is already a listed vandal, nice to know that you are the same as Livingdone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is the same as Tartupaluk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Maybe you should start to act a little more grownup before you declare new states? Twthmoses 23:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I will apolagize for deleting your articles, but I do not know what you mean by me being the same as those other people, because I am not. Please accept my apology.142.59.159.55 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my articles, this is a collaborate effort. You don’t have to apologize for anything, just don’t vandalize, very simple. Twthmoses 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Geoffrey Pernell

Hello. Thank you for your recent edit to Geoffrey_Pernell. Your edit included one or more links to the page British, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Geoffrey_Pernell to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Russ (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???? since I did not add any link why is this auto responce comming my way? Twthmoses 18:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M1911 Pistol US.jpg

The image currently has the provision that it may not be modified, which makes it unfree content under our rules that require licenses to allow derivatives. Would you considering removing this provision? You'd still need to be credited as the author no matter how the image was used. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you dont have any special to do you can wikify Olinda Borggren or Jenny ulving or Marie Plosjö/matrix17

Image:Saxo horn version 001.jpg listed for deletion

Hi Twthmoses.

I've listed Image:Saxo horn version 001.jpg for deletion. Louis Moe died as late as 1945, so I'm afraid we don't have much of a choice. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Twthmoses

This Barnstar of national merit is awarded to you for all your danish related contributions, wear it with pride.
Best regards
Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Danske Forsvars logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Danske Forsvars 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Erik VII seal 1398.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Erik VII seal 1398.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Madmedea 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

Image:Image:Erik VII seal 1398.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Erik VII seal 1398.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twthmoses. We also have another version of that seal Image:Erikafpommernsdanskeunionssegl.jpg which is PD (I've run a check on Thiset and his associates). If needs be, I can upload my own scan of a drawing from 1882, also PD. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odense 002.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Odense 002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pagrashtak 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Pagrashtak 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odense 004.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Odense 004.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pagrashtak 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Pagrashtak 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:10 jan 2004 EOD mortar rounds iraq.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:10 jan 2004 EOD mortar rounds iraq.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Konstable 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]