User talk:Chowbok/Archive 6

Governor Brad Henry image

I dont understand why you deleted the image of Brad Henry I added. According to what I have read on Wikipedia, the image was a promotional image presented by the Governor's website as a Press Photo. Thus I tagged it as a promo photo. Can you explain your reasons for deleting the image and offer suggestions as what I can do to upload the correct image.Rougher07 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for writing me back. You said create a fair-use image. Can you explain how to do that? Thanks Rougher07 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fine

I don't want to have that image for Dave Mays used anymore. Go ahead an proceed in the process of deletion or removal. I want to understand how to upload images the proper way. But thanks for the information. LILVOKA 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Craig thompson.jpg

Care to explain how we could get a free image which both delineates Thompson's art style and himself in the same hit? I concede the fair usage needs a better explanation, but I don't think this falls under replaceable, since a free image that provides substantially the same information may not reasonably be found or created for the reason stated. Steve block Talk 12:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

CHICOTW

I have not heard from you regarding Promontory Point. I will assume you no longer have significant problems. Since you are a Chicagoan, do you have any pet Chicago articles that you would like to see worked on? If you have anything you would like help with please nominate it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/COTW. Since just about anything you nominate will likely be chosen we can see if we can get along on a collaboration. TonyTheTiger 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Delamo concept.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Delamo concept.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The original uploader of the image is Tertiary7; I only converted it to PNG from the original GIF. Just asked him about this image. --Fibonacci 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vandalism my Backside

Stop Trolling my photos and stalking me, you are nothing but trouble and you continue to prawl my photos because I don't like it, I contribute a hell of a lot to this project and you continue to burn your bridges and try and harrass me and you just will not stop. I want you to learn if you want to play hardball. You frustrate me greatly, I want you to please leave me alone, I do not want you to talk to me, bother me or harrass me or my photographs. I'm sorry to say this but I cannot take any more of your harrassing behviour.--Jack Cox 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you do this?

It just boggles my mind why you continue to do this, don't you have anything better to do on this website then mindlessly harrass people and destroy some of their hard-earned work, why is it that you continue to insist your a beacon of integrity when all you do is completely harrass people and refuse to give up when you know you are wrong. I have never had a problem with this site until you and Abu badali showed up to mass delete my images. I'm warning you to please leave me and my world alone and if someone wants to sue you can direct them right to my lawyer.--Jack Cox 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please refrain from any talk of lawyers or legal action as such is typically contrary to policy WP:LEGAL. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Thank you. SuMadre 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Go Away

Now I know the only thing your interested in is to troll through my photos, Harrass Me, Stalk me and threaten me into submission by claiming I will be blocked because your friends with the higher ups who no doubt agree with you, I want you to understand that your refusing to compromise and understand the other sides point of view is entirely rediculous. What kind of sick, twisted pleasure do you get from this? Do you enjoy causing people misery because it seems to me you deserve all the crap that people throw at you, When you anger people this is the kind of stuff that pops up on your talk page. Now, I'm going to ask you to stop tagging all my photos, I'm sick to death of this crap and I really mean it. As I talk right now I am in a complete rage. I know all these tricks you've sicked your friend Abu dabali on me for revenge because I'm telling you to stop pulling this crap, ENOUGH! I don't ever want to see another image of mine tagged because dammit, you have pushed me and you have pushed me and I cannot stand it anymore. I AM one of the hardest working contributors on hear and because of everything you have done, you have sullied my reputation and made me out to be some kind of Criminal. I'm sorry it has had to come to this but honestly I have had it after I searched all over the place for these images to have them snuffed out without any meaningful debate.--Jack Cox 06:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

78 labels

Hi. I see you've been changing the tags of some of the images of 78 record labels used to illustrate the relevent articles. (The "fairuse" was the prefered tag per Wikipedia policy back when they were so labeled.) I see you've changed that to "albumcover". As they are not album covers, I think this is not appropriate. I suggest "Non-free fair use in|article name" as a better choice. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedist

Howdy! I saw the image tag message you left Encyclopedist. As he has been indefinately banned, it's unlikely he'll fix the licensing on the file you noticed. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy‎

I'm interested to hear some feedback from you on my latest idea at here. Thanks.--Jeff 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vanessa Amorosi.PNG‎

Why did you tag the image I uploaded in good faith with Replaceable fair use? Ansett 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

input?

Whatt're your thoughts on this? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, could I bother you about Image:Heroes-charlie.jpg & Image:Haydenp_smaller.jpg as well? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

After reading through the recent discussion and vote on the first fair use criterion, I've come to understand how important the first fair use criterion is to Wikipedia. I want to start image tagging, but don't know how to go about it. I found RC patrol and NP patrol pages, but I couldn't find an image tagging patrol page. Would you recommend some instructions on how to go about image tagging? Thanks. -- Jreferee 17:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandeis Images

Sorry I have not responded fast enough for your liking (it is a busy time of year for some of us). The response I received from Brandeis was a one-line "sure it's ok, please use whatever you want" type of email. I intend on contacting them for a more "formal" elaboration after they return from break. I still have not received a confirmation number from Wikipedia. I think you should consider the matter of the Brandeis images closed unless I inform you otherwise. Alight 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Danielburial2.jpg

It doesn't make any sense, the tag says, "This image is used under a fair use rationale, but may fail Wikipedia's first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image that provides substantially the same information might reasonably be found or created. See the talk page for details." However, there is nothing on the talk page. You need to explain how it's replaceable. Do you have any free images of Daniel's Tomb? I couldn't find any. Khoikhoi 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite clear that I dispute it. Can you just explain it to me? I even provided a rationale. Khoikhoi 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It says, "where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". At the moment there is no evidence that one can be created. I know a free use image cannot be replaced with a fair use one, but in this case we need an image to illustrate the subject, and it's better than having no image.... Khoikhoi 06:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bugatti

It just seemed to me to be highly unlikely that anyone would be able to make a free image of those cars. If you think there's reason to believe they could, you could get wider discussion of the issue by taking it to deletion review, which is also for material believed to have been inappropriately kept (not just for material believed to have been inappropriately deleted). The thing is, I have to be careful not to be overly strict when reviewing potentially replaceable fair use images, because my personal philosophy is that the encyclopedia shouldn't have any fair use images at all. Maybe I overcompensated too far in the other direction this time. —Angr 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

listen to me

dude, about that rachel bilson picture...how did u find it? and also some guy named User: Matthew Fenton deleted it from the Rachel Bilson page...so can u please have a talk with him because he deleted it! thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 18:43, December 30, 2006 (UTC-6)

i never said that u edited it....i meant how did u find my picture of Rachel Bilson? and also i was mistaken....his name is User:MatthewFenton i have a question....how exactly do u delete an account because i wanna delete mine..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 19:13, December 30, 2006 (UTC-6)

my point is...i thought i deleted my rachel bilson picture and yet u found it....and also...what do u mean AdelynaAdelyna?

OHHHHHH.....now i get it...thanx

arg

fine, we'll try to get more 'clarification.' VitaleBaby 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, but read the rules

I don't mind editors doing their job cleaning up WP, I just wish they were a bit more familiar with the rules. In your self-appointed watchdog role, you have let your zeal blind you from a complete reading of the rules of "fair-use". A promotional image, distributed by the band's promo company, especially when a high-res image is available for download is clearly usable according to WP guidelines. I clearly stated this in the notes of the image. Can you please explain how your overwrought nitpicking definition supercedes a clear WP guideline? I have not monitored the Joggers page I created, but apparently need to. It is apparently far too much trouble to ever contact a page creator through email when major changes are proposed. "Not in the rules", I know. However, I will be reupping the image and vigorously challenging you on any further deletions.Guyanakoolaid 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• You write: See WP:FUC, which states that a fair-use image cannot be used if a free image "could be created". In this case, a free image could be created. —Chowbok ☠ 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in your haste to read the part of WP:FUC which supports your beloved pasttime of deleting all fair-use images you come across on WP, you failed to read the entirety of the article. The very first sentence of WP:FUC states: "The primary goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy is to protect our mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums." This is what a promotional photo is for. It is given freely by the company allowed to do so to whomever wants it to freely use to describe the band wherever they want. The first sentence of the second paragraph reads,"Copyrighted material lacking a free licence such as GFDL may be used on the English-language Wikipedia under fair use if the following criteria are met." According to this sentence, an image must have a free license, which WP accepts if , as it says in the above tag, ownership can be proven. Ownership comes from the fact that, well, one look at the promotional company's website (which was clearly linked for you before you started this unecessary mess) clearly lays out the fact that they are indeed the band's management, and the fact that they provide a high-resolution version of the same image almost 10MB big proves they own it, which again a link to was clearly laid out for you. They clearly are providing this image completely free. A thourough reading of WP:FUC clearly shows its intention to be to provide as free an alternative as possible. I really don't know how a more free image could be found unless i went to one of the band's shows and had them lineup and take their picture myself, and that is if they ever came here. I have read the other comments at your user space, and it does indeed seem as if you get a kind of thrill out of having the enforcement of some line of text taken out of context to go around and delete as many photos as you can. Your response to me was certainly bullying in nature..."Instead of fighting me on this, why not spend your time contacting the band's management to see if they'll release the image under a free license?". Actually, why don't you? WP clearly states that it wishes its editors be at least a bit pro-active before deleting content. I guess your zeal blinds any thoughts of courtesy. But again, I believe you are completely out of order, I believe this image is clearly provided to be free, and that no adequate "more free" substitute is available.Guyanakoolaid 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's for sake of argument cast aside all speculation about motives. I have laid out my case "in good faith" on the image's talk page and here and would like to hear about how a better free alternative is available. I assume "in good faith" you will not simply delete my image again without providing an answer. You may respond whenever, but please do so before deleting in haste, as you have done several times before, not that i would ever draw speculation about such activities, it's just what you do.

I know you believe you are doing good work on WP, but you are coming across as authoritarian. To provide you a possible different way of doing things, it would go much more smoothly if when talking to people, you provided a brief reason (in clear english) of deletion and suggest a possible alternative. You have still not suggested a single possible real-life alternative than your vague talk of a "more free" image, and it again in my mind doesn't get more free than the creator of an image giving super high-res versions away for people to freely associate with the photo's subject. Deleting mass images with no warning and no explanation other than a link to your photo-deletion manifesto just doesn't strike me as helping.Guyanakoolaid 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you will take the time to read WP:FUC, you will clearly see that this image meets each and every one of the requirements. As for your comment on my talk page, i really don't see how you have confused anything i have written with me possibly thinking "free" only means monetarily free. I have never even said anything of the sort, my assertion is that a promo company giving away a 9+MB version of the photo clearly shows their intent to distribute it freely. In fact, WP:FUC itself states: "Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy)." So WP knows that giving away a 9+MB version of the file shows clear intent to distribute.

And there is another important word, which appears prominently twice in WP:FUC which you are completely ignoring: "EQUIVALENT". Almost no photo I have ever seen of any band has clearly shown all the members of the band at the same time. Your argument may not intend to have the following consequences, but it will, which is why i am debating you here instead of simply asking the band, who i am aquainted with... because in the end your argument will mean that a half-ass fan shot of a band with the drummer buried behind his kit and half the face of the bass player will be used over a clear promotional image intended by its creators to accompany articles and media about the subject. Guyanakoolaid 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't heard from you on the Joggers image talk page in five days, can I assume you realize that your rationale seen out to its logical end would result in caca images on WP? Guyanakoolaid 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha!

I was just deleting images going over to commons and ran across Image:Trick or Treater.jpg. It was such a funny picture I saved it, and then when I got the standard warning about the talk page I realized it was actually someone from wikipedia! Anyway, cute picture! - cohesion 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Granholm Image

I'm having trouble finding any picture of Gov. Granholm that isn't state property & is of good enough quality. I think this falls under fair use. Before removing images on the principle that a free replacement may be found, could you please try looking for one? --JesseBHolmes 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you found a free Granholm image, but my general complaint still stands; fair-use images in the Wikipedia should not be removed until a free replacement is found. --JesseBHolmes 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your incentive argument, but in some cases, fair use really does apply. Unless some effort to find a replacement is made before deletion, it's impossible to tell whether fair use is an issue. It really is necessary to replace, rather than summarily delete, the images in question. --JesseBHolmes 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Aarcover

Can you provide some sources that prove this can be expanded? Uncle G stated that articles that will remain eternal stubs can be deleted and if there's nothing to say about the font I tend to agree. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:John F. MacArthur, Jr.jpg

Restored. --Coredesat 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stan Lee

Naw, no problem, I'll just put the old one back. It's just that there's no fair-use, non-book-cover image available from 1973 to now, and I thought a 33-year-old picture wasn't necessarily the most encyclopedic. Oh, well, no harm, no foul. --Tenebrae 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greek Fire Catapult (Harper's Engraving).png

Hi - I'm a bit skeptical the image was created in the 13th century, or has anything to do with Greek Fire. Is there any more information about the source, or where it came from, so I can research it further? It looks to me like it was created in the 19th C (probably for Harper's by a modern engraver) and depicts simply a flaming barrel and catapult, which would have been common and not related to Greek Fire. So I'm wondering how this image was associated with a 13th C piece, and why it's associated with Greek Fire, to verify. Thanks! -- Stbalbach 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stan Lee on Flickr

Did a search on Flickr and found this pic which seems a lot more recent than the 1973 one and also seems to be a 'free' image. Can I replace the one on the main article?--CyberGhostface 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also found this pic of Rob, which would look pretty good if I were to crop out the fan.--CyberGhostface 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And before you ask: Yes, I have sent permission requests to all of the users.--CyberGhostface 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did that.--CyberGhostface 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About the image

Hi chowbok. I noticed you put a tag on ustc image again. But why did you do that? I don't think this falls under replaceable image. Though the image indicates the two building at the same time, I'm using this only for University of Science & Technology Chittagong. There is no article exist on wikipedia named Bangabandhu Memorial Hospital (BBMH). Is there any problem with that image license or the source !!? I already mentioned fair use rational. Honestly, if you know appropriate license for ustc image then let me know. Thank you nahid _talk 08-01-2007

Rep:Image:USTC_building.jpg‎

Ah image problem. But I,ve found a new version of this file along with some other images like, 1.Academic Building, USTC 2.Central Library, USTC 3.Syedur Rahman International Hall, USTC. Please visit this link www.ustc.edu.bd and have a look on these images. Is it ok to upload Academic Building of USTC or those images by replacing {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{Fairusein|Article}} or equivalent. I don't need other images except the Academic Building of USTC though. How can that tag be removed from existing image? I replaced {{promophoto}} licenses on this image before it's tagged. Was it wrong?
PS: An image of Gulmeher Hall USTC is available here www.ustc.edu.bd/aboutustc/aboutustc. This image is appropriate than the image of Gulmeher Hall USTC in www.ustc.edu.bd. Thank you nahid _talk 09-01-2007

• But I found some institutional building/other pictures that are directly taken from the website and the author release it under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} with source. Here are some pictures: Image:1154612561317s.jpg, Image:02-Norton.jpg and Image:000976 34bb218f.jpg, (I'm referring these images only for info purpose). How can I understand it has free license (TAKEN from the website) without taking by myself / author? Can you please explain it and and also {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Thank you nahid _talk 10-01-2007
• I forgot to say about fair use image. It's a bit confusing. Please also explain it regarding on thess images Image:Asif khan.jpg, Image:2-Bit Pie.jpg. And What about those celebrity pictures that are found in website? Most of the time they are uploaded under fair use {{promophoto}} or {{Fairusein}}. Some of them uploaded without website source: Image:VidyaBalan.jpg andImage:196910 Jean Bell 00.jpg.
• I said some of the pictures uploaded from website and author released it under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. But how can it be self-made? Didn't you see the web link of Image:000976 34bb218f.jpg in its description page? I found lot of pictures in this category. My point is then what type of image I could release under fair-use? As you can see this featured article image Image:Selena.jpg released under fair-use and cannot be tagged, right. But why? Another point is most of the historical images uploaded under {{Fairusein}} and {{HistoricPhotoRationale}}. Are they ok? Suppose, I have some historical images that cannot be found in website. In that case is it ok to upload them by using above licenses. If not then which license is appropriate for them and how can I refer their source as well? Please have a look on it Image:11SSMen-Narva.jpg. I just want to get clear information. Thank you nahid _talk 11-01-2007
• Even if the historical image found in website then is it ok to upload them under {{Fairusein}} and {{HistoricPhotoRationale}}.
• It means {{fairuse}} can be repalced on those image subjects that are no more exist except {{promophoto}} and {{promotional}} right. Then open the link here [1]], most of the images are under fair-use even the the subject is stil exist. What about them?

And what about celebrity and cartoon image license, those found in website-What can be their license? Please tell me about it. Thank you. NAHID 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh Thanks for your nice expalanation. Some more question to you : Can advertising images be used in fair use? If I upload this type image / dead celebrity images from website under fair-use then is it necessary to mention the weblink or source? Or could I just write the image name?
• What about those images that are taken by presskit. Aren't they replaceable? As one of the picture here Image:Ianking.jpg. Has it correct license? I've still confusion in {{promophoto}} and {{promotional}}. In promotional ,I found some picture that is taken by author, as one of it Image:Pizzahutpanpizza.JPG. If I take any picture by myself then could I release it under any license that is related to the subject (except GFDL or GFDL-SELF)? For instance if I take any picture of logo or historical image from any signboard or photo. Can I release it under duel license? For example: GFDL-SELF and Logo, GFDL-SELF and fair-use / publicdomain and GFDL-SELF and equivalent.
• This image Image:AjayDevgan.jpg uploaded under {{Promotional}} license. Is it a correct license for this image? If not then which license should be replaced?
• Is it okay to upload celebrity image under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. For example, what could be the license of Selena if she was still performing her job? And have a look on this image Image:Riyasen-alone.jpg. The image was taken from wikimedia though and there is no websource, just some written information. The aouther may be the creditor. What if I was uploaded this type of image on wikipedia under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} directly from the website. Do I need to mention the websource if it was taken from website? If I got the celebrity image like Image:Riyasen-alone.jpg from somewhere then would it be okay to upload it under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} without referring its source?
• I found most of the pornstars / celebrity (porn stars please visit here and have a look on those images) image uploaded under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. But their websource doesn't mention any {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} as you mentioned it before. Some of them uploaded under {{PD-release}}. Here one of it Image:Dani Woodward DSC 0127.JPG. There is no written permission link here except weblink. Is it necessary to add permission link? BTW can you tell me something about the website flickr or something like that? If I upload images from there then do I need to get the permission from author? As I mentioned avobe image that doesn't have written permission link. Is it ok?
• Some of the historical image I found uploaded under public domain (published before 1923). It means I can use historical images both under Non-free fair use in and publicdomain, right. You can check this image Image:Ma Anandamayi01.jpg. It contains huge summary. Is it really necessary to add detailed information of this type of image?
• Do you happen know the license of ISO certificate image? Is there any license of it? Or could I just upload it under fair-use (I think it's not replaceable).If not then what license should be replaced?
• Last but not least what about this fairuse image Image:Riya Book.png. Is it replaceable image? if not, then why?

Please give me the answer step by step. Thank you nahid _talk 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Look if you must delete the Pamela Tola image you could at least remove the mess from the page. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I can kind of see how you tagged it as it is possible a free image could replace it but higly unlikely its just very soon we are going to be without any quality images of living people!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You see i do agree with you to an extent that wikipedia should be as free as possible but where we differ is that I think we should use the image until a replacement is found -although I can see your argument that if the image is there someone will be less likely to find one. I hope that pretty soon wikipedia will become so massive that actors will have photos taken especially to get there name on here. Do you agree? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ernst, you speak as if you are talking to a real person. This is just an image troll, unable to hear other's words, taking something a momma troll once told it and living out its life to accomplish its mission. It's sad, really, have more pity than anger. Guyanakoolaid 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is out to get you

An anon has been posting your email address, phone number and home address in several edit summaries. I have asked the people at WP:OVERSIGHT to remove them. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Chowbok, please see the related discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Somebody_is_out_to_get_User:Chowbok. I'm sorry that you are having to go through this. Thank you for your hard work with all of these images ... sometimes I don't think that gets said enough. --BigDT 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of it, they got it off the website you have linked on your userpage so I'm guessing you are not trying too hard to hide your identity... it should still be removed though. What I'm wondering is why they are doing this though since I don't see any evidence you've ever interacted with this IP...--Isotope23 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of the IPs appear to be proxy servers. I'm sure it's a user who had an image deleted that I tagged. —Chowbok ☠ 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah...Makes sense.--Isotope23 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how did you grow up in Ann Arbor and not get sucked into going to U of M?--Isotope23 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I spent most of my childhood worried about that very possibility. My clever plan to ensure it wouldn't happen was to get terrible grades in high school. —Chowbok ☠ 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Excellent plan. That's how I got to go to Michigan State University...--Isotope23 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Tagging images for removal can be a contentious affair, but seeing all of those free images replacing unfree images makes it worth it. Keep up the good work! Oden 12:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My images

I'd prefer it if you didn't stalk my edits. Thanks.Fistful of Questions 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)