User talk:Adnghiem501/archive

Welcome!

Hi, Adnghiem501/archive, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.

Link 03:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Adnghiem. I created an article at Template:HistoricPhotoRationale. That way you can add it to images by inserting {{HistoricPhotoRationale}}. I hope this answers your question. If you have any other questions about how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heather O'Rourke pic

Hi, FIY, you addressed me in my talk page in the Hebrew Wiki thus I added a comment here. Also, perhaps it would be best to ask the site where you got this image for extra details... Regards, Yonidebest 10:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of 3 images

Hi, thanks for you message. I suggest you place your question at Wikipedia:Image sleuthing whose members seem to be experts at finding sources for almost anything. Thuresson 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Meyers

Hi there, how you doing? Let me start off by saying that I'm very impressed with your interest and participation in Wiki. Images can be cut and posted, there is no problem with that. The image of Ari came from the wallpaper section of the the website. Wallpapers or screensavers are free to the public and it is assumed that the owner of the site is offering them on good faith. Our concern is to post the source and it's copyright status. The original wallpaper site does not state that the image is copyrighted (other wise it wouldn't be a free wallpaper) therefore, there is no copyright violation on our behave and it is assumed in good faith that the image is public domain. Anyway, besides that consider me your friend if I can ever assist you in anyway please do not hesitate to drop me a line. Happy Holidays Tony the Marine 18:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 5:

Hi Tony! I've voted to keep the image. I'm sorry this newbie has done this - there's nothing unencyclopedic about the image, it's in good taste, and it's PD. If that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia, I don't know what does. Anyway, have a great Christmas! David Cannon 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The wallpaper from Ari Meyers Online includes two images together. You cut one of the images from it for use in our encyclopedia. Anyway, why do you believe the image is public domain? Please provide your rationale. Adnghiem501 10:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony, the image is probably not in the public domain, which is probably why it is up for deletion. I think you can claim fair use, but you will have to explain why you want to use this image. Zach (Smack Back) 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:AMeyers.jpg. It is OK to be useful in our encyclopedia. I don't think it must have copyvio anymore. Can you tell me why the use of this image qualifies as fair use? Adnghiem501 00:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. This means that the copyright holder for the image is willing to let Wikipedia use the image for free, but if some other site copies Wikipedia's content, that other site does not have permission to use the image. But there's a problem with that. Wikipedia is a "free" Encyclopedia, meaning other sites (like Answers.com and Infopedia.com) copy all Wikipedia's content, and that's okay, so long as their sites are also free. So if only Wikipedia has permission to use it, then ironically, Wikipedia won't use it, because we want Wikipedia to stay free and non-exclusive. That's why any images tagged this way get deleted after 7 days, unless the copyright holder agrees to release the image under the GFDL. (Then it gets tagged {{GFDL}} instead.)

Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

human feces

Please use article talk pages for talks about articles. This image is not vandalism; its removal is. It is directly relevant to this page. mikka (t) 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Ari meyers Image

How are you? Thanks for writing. You know, even though 8 administrator (including myself) voted to keep the old image, I kept my promise that I would upload a new image regardless of the results and I kept my word. Images that are either movie or TV screens qualify as fair use according to Wiki policy. Even though the copyright holder is the film company, these screen images are put into PD for promotional purposes. Hey, remember, dispite the old issue involved, I'm here for you as a Wiki friend. Did I answer your question? Tony the Marine 01:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note about vandalism

The one whose IP address is 207.102.21.253 that vandalized my page was perhaps used by TripleH1976, who has been blocked indefinitely for account deletion request. You're responsible to watch my page that someone's going to write something offensive on it. Thank you, Adnghiem501 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dewikifying filmographies

I noticed that you dewikified the Martin Scorsese filmography, as well as several others. Unless this is a policy I'm not aware of, it is best no to dewikify links like this, especially in the case of filmographies. It incites people to create the articles by demonstrating the lack of a page on the topic. Also, once the page is created, the links don't have to be re-added. --Comics 03:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AmberEvans.jpg

After looking closer, you are most likely right. I believe the image that was there was made specifically for selling. I uploaded a new image that I think has a better fair use claim -Thanks Nv8200p talk 04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the new image in response to the message you left me, so nothing to be sorry about. -Nv8200p talk 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Dbenbenn (Archive 8/21:56 23 January 2006 (UTC)):

We should not use this picture in Wikipedia. It is inappropriate and uncensored, and is a copyright violation of AmberEvans.com. I have read your comment you wrote at IFD, and it's a decision to get rid of the photo. We do not want to see Amber Evans exposing her boobs. Besides I don't think the picture is a publicity photo. Adnghiem501 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This picture was previously deleted twice. Don't vote to keep it. See deletion log. Adnghiem501 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The first time, it was deleted by User:TheCoffee after being nominated at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 31, 2005. Which is strange, because everyone voted to keep, and TheCoffee wrote that the image was not deleted. The second time, User:Kelly Martin apparently speedy deleted it as an orphaned fairuse (since it was not used at Amber Evans from September 2 to October 22). Neither of these deletions speaks to whether it is a legitimate fair use. dbenbenn | talk

sag22 photo

It was a press released picture from a premiere. The copyright is fine I assure you.

JJstroker 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clark Gable 8th-AF-Britain1943.jpg

Hi, I think you may have put the wrong copyright tag on this by mistake. The public domain tag used is for images produced before 1923, however this is clearly a World War II image, the file name itself gives the year as 1943. Could you please have another look at this and tag it accordingly. Thanks Rossrs 11:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

christina picture

Have you ever uploaded photos for wikipedia? When you mark and upload it as "press release" it shows up on the page as from an agency. The copyright is fine.

JJstroker 23:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game Over (film)

Excuse me, but why'd you remove the images I added to the article when I created it? I took the screenshots from my own DVD. Is that against the rules somewhere? I added them because I felt they were acceptable under fair use. Your comments on the deletion don't make it clear. I'm not reverting anything, I just want to get this straightened out. Thanks! - Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 00:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply to your comment at my talk page. (I don't know if you get notified of the reply, so I figured I'd better do it here.) - Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you again. :) - Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danielle Van Dam.jpg

Once images are deleted, they cannot be restored. Since the image was an orphan, I doubt it would be on one of Wikipedia's mirrors. You can re-upload the image if you have it or can find it. Be sure to properly source, tag and attach to the article or it may be deleted again. -Nv8200p talk 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Turks

No, it's not put up for deletion. The Young Turks—a NN band— was put up for deletion, but it was suggested that it might make a very useful redirect to Young Turks, which is a very notable and worthwhile article, and certainly not one that should be deleted! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:GeorgeStepanek:

I'm sorry! Is Young Turks going to put up for deletion? I've noticed that you removed the AfD tag from the article, however. It was redirected from The Young Turks, that I saw at AfD. adnghiem501 (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of either Young Turks or The Young Turks was put up for deletion on AfD, but these pages would be bizarre towards me. The Young Turks should be redirected instead of being placed on AfD. I've already seen its debate has been closed. We don't need to forward this discussion anymore. Thanks! adnghiem501 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Davidchockachi2.jpg

According to the source page it's from WireImage. I could have deleted it as a copyvio, but IMHO a fair use argument can be made here. Of course, IANAL either. howch e ng {chat} 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Howcheng/Archive4:

I have a doubt that the image comes from WireImage, but its source is yahoo. Also, after the removal of copyvio, you tagged it with a fair use in and provided your rationale. Anyway why don't you admit the copyvio for the image? adnghiem501 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the image has been cropped and is of low quality. Such a view can be used to identify the subject of a sole person. However, I noticed that the uploader had complaint and was worried about this image being copyvio at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Another result like this image, he uploaded an image of Christine Lahti, which was also from WireImage. He continued to re-added the image to her article, after I removed it from that article. He said "the copyright is fine I assured you" to me twice on my talk page. Later, I reported the image to User:Zscout370 on his talk page. The user removed it from Christine Lahti's article then deleted it immediately for copyvio. Because you called yourself IANAL, this image was given with your argument for the result of being fair use. I was unlikely to deal with the consensus at all the time. adnghiem501 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

brekinridge long...

I dont think the text is copyright violation. I believe that it is copyrighted but I gave proper source. I dont remember the status. Can you please take off the copyright violation so I can copy the format so I can rewrite it?

thanks, JJstroker 06:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always ask permission for image use but since I dont really write articles myself I didnt really know the policy for starting articles yourself. I will ask permission but can I please have the source in the meantime so I can re write it? I will work on it in the meantime on my personal computer I wont add it up on wikipedia until I get permission.

JJstroker 07:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to see what I already wrote. It would be very helpful to reorganize and rewrite. It will help me find out what information I need that falls under fair use. It would be a model for me to reshape in my own words and research. If you can please just post the article enough time for me to get the source I would appreciate it.

JJstroker 07:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me the source page as opposed to deleting it? I will ask them for permission but I dont want the work that I put time into deleted.

thanks, JJstroker 08:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Reid Image

I was trying to upload the image and you keep changing the article page before I can upload the picture, so then I can't upload the picture because it's not in the article. Please see Tara's talk page. --DragonWR12LB 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the photo fall under the "promotional" licence since it's a press-release photo.

Thanks, as you can see I added the licence to the pic. --DragonWR12LB 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I never knew posting a picture was so hard, ok I think it's all squared away now. --DragonWR12LB 07:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:

Thanks for editing User: Julian Thome.

User:JJstrokey

Yes, it is possible that it's the same editor, but either way it is an inappropriate username. The blocked user hasn't sent me a complaint. Since the category appears to be headed for deletion, there's no need to jump the gun by emptying it. -Will Beback 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Will Beback:

Actually, User:JJstroker might use this username as sockpuppet. adnghiem501 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, User:JJstrokey only contributed by removing Category:Jewish_liberals from several articles. He added the category to User:JJstroker's userspace, but then I reverted. adnghiem501 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "to jump the gun by emptying it"? I'm just asking you about the category deletion in question. adnghiem501 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Jewish_liberals nominated for deletion. The deletion tag says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." On 2/21/06 the CfD closed and the category was deleted. A wikibot usually does the chore of removing categories from articles. There is no reason for someone to create a name that mimics the original creator, to duplicate that user's page, and to empty the category prior to its deletion. If you know anything more about the matter I'd be interested. -Will Beback 19:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Brain tumor

Why are you reverting my edits. Bert Convy did die of a brain tumor. What is going on??

Why are you and Arwel Perry deleting perfectly valid edits for no reason??

Aren't I allowed to add names to the category of persons who were afflicted or died from brain tumors??

What the hell is going on?? Robbie 09:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(aka: Rms125a@hotmail.com)

As I told Arwel Perry, the only reason there were so many changes on Convy and others since is because I had a LOT of trouble with the parameters, columns, spaceing, etc. I couldn't leave it messed up, so I had to fix it by trying every way I could, and unfortunately, that creates continuous reproductions that appear as multiple edits on the same subject, which Hywel Perry told me was what aroused his suspicions.

I really hope I can get the hang of the spacing, parameters and columns so I don't have to keep going back and fiddling with it to make it perfect. I assure you I don;t find that fun.

Somebody changed my Username Signature, so I went from Rms125a@hotmail.com (although I still register that way) to "Robbie". I contacted a mediator, Theresa Knott, about this matter. I'm just letting you know b/c it might seems strange for me to have a different signature. Robbie 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com:

Sorry, I didn't check for Bert Convy in List of notable brain tumor patients. He died of brain tumor in 1991, so you're right. And for your edits, you need to make changes on articles carefully; otherwise, I'll watch your contribs closely. Because I don't want you to make deletion of some text from the articles. adnghiem501 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rossrs

Wups, nice catch. Got in a hurry... Radio Kirk talk to me 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. adnghiem501 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Image:PetersonCuffed2.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:PetersonCuffed2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Marilyn Monroe

You informed me and I quote: You're continuing to make problematic edits, including removing the date of death from Marilyn Monroe, and claiming the edit was minor when it wasn't. Please edit in accordance with our content policies. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I therefore assumed that you took issue with that one thing; I didn't realize all of my edits were unacceptable; if so, why, as most of them are factual or issues of minor syntax. I didn't put anything inflammatory or untrue. Rms125a@hotmail.com 05:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Why did you revert date changes to the Sean T O'Kelly and Douglas Hyde articles? It has long been Wikipedia policy to use the local date usage for British, Irish and American articles. All Irish articles are supposed to be written in the international format dd/mm/yyyy not the US format mm/dd/yyyy. All that happened was the some users, perhaps innocently, added in some US format dates to articles originally written, and supposed to be written as per policy in dd/mm/yyyy. The user in question then corrected them both to match the format we are supposed to use and the form of dates already used elsewhere in the article. If someone is changing UK, US or Irish articles to their localised date form all they are doing is following WP policy and removing breaks in policy. Please do not revert such changes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitasoy copyright violation

I've noticed your removal of content has been reverted. LDHan 11:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page for details. Did you not look at Vitasoy.com before your removal of content? I think it would be better to rewrite the article with NPOV. LDHan 11:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbass

I was trying to kill a redlink to it, but I've deleted my edit, and correspondingly, the article; anyone may recreate it as needed. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've since deleted that article and don't intend to recreate it myself. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Xaosflux/Archive10:

What does the word dumbass mean? If it is, why did you make this page redirect to Ass? Besides I have watched this page. adnghiem501 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to kill a redlink to it, but I've deleted my edit, and correspondingly, the article; anyone may recreate it as needed. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This word is already available on Wiktoinary. Previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumbass. adnghiem501 (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Chadbryant.

The dot is correct... it's an impostor account with an extra . in it, which I've now blocked. -- Curps 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was just a clarification not a criticism. Thanks for your contributions. -- Curps 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Curps:

Can you look into this account? With the almost-identical-to-mine username and the edit history, I highly suspect it is a "DickWitham" sock, or the latest sock of User:TruthCrusader, who has been lashing out since his RFA against me isn't being taken very seriously. - Chadbryant 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about User:TruthCrusader "lashing out" at you are unwarranted and paranoid at best. I would suggest you refrain from making such accusations as they could be construed as personal attacks; or, given your history of behavior on Wikipedia, as motivations more to your own than others. --Eat At Joes 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the user was an imposter. I've just checked the block log for this. And I've placed {{impostor}} to the imposter's user page. I am sorry about it. adnghiem501 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why you make a AFd nomination for EFFECTION: HELLRAISER? The film doesn´t exist on the IMDb, but in the reality. The film will be complete and release this year. It´s a present movie. It´s not famous, but it´s good! Please not delete the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Thome (talk • contribs)

Please

Please stop creating a AfD nomination for EFFECTION: HELLRAISER. The film will be releasing in a few weeks! - User: Julian Thome

I've given them a final warning, If they do it again I will send a block request on IRC and it will be done pretty fast. -- Tawker 07:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effection

I´s a present film. This film must have a good article, then the movie makes interesting. Maybe it be good at the Box Office. - User: Julian Thome

Infobox Biography

Is there a specific reason you reverted my changes on {{Infobox Biography}}, or did you just not like it？ I always think it's nice to provide a visual example of what the template might look like. bmearns, KSC_(talk) 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from my redirected talk page on the Commons

Image:Tysonmug1.jpg

Hi, do you have a source who can verify that photos from the Scottsdale, AZ, police are public domain?

There are a number of external links available at commons:Template talk:PD-US-mugshot who make it clear that a) criminal records are sensitive material that may in fact not be freely available and b) even if freely available, that does not necessarily mean that photos can be used by anybody for any purpose.

According to title 39-121.03 of Arizona law, it may not be permissable to use Arizona public records for commercial use. Thuresson 04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]