User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive11

New photo listed for deletion

I forgot to list this one with the others - maybe you could comment? It's listed here. Thanks, John Smith's 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You also didn't comment on Image:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg. I don't know whether that's because you missed it, or weren't sure either way. If you could give feedback on both this and the "behead" picture I'd appreciate it. Or leave a message on my talk page if you're undecided. Thanks, John Smith's 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The heads one I just missed, and I hadn't gotten around to the other one yet. Thanks for the reminder. howcheng {chat} 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Np. Thanks for taking the time to comment on both. John Smith's 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracey Walter

Hi. Someone removed a headshot that I put on my dad's page (Tracey Walter). The information telling me that it was removed linked to your name. He owns the headshot and we have the approval of the photographer. I thought I had listed that correctly when I uploaded the photo. Please let me know why you took it down. It took me a VERY long time to figure out how to put it up there. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MM62 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

This was listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for more than two weeks without any response from anyone, so we had to conclude that the image was not free content. The image needs to be available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial distribution and derivative works. If this is OK with your father or the photographer (whichever one holds the copyright), then please have him write an email to OTRS (see that page for instructions) and that will take care of everything. Once you do that, I will gladly restore the image for you. Hope that helps and let me know if you have any more questions. howcheng {chat} 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I sent that email today. Will you really be able to restore it? I cannot find the photo anywhere to put it back up as it has been up there for like a year or something and I don't remember at all how to do it. Thanks.

Hi I was just wondering if you got that email I sent to wikipedia about the photo. I have not gotten a response from them and do not know who else to contact or what to do. Thanks

7.6.07 6:54pm

Hi. I am still waiting for a response. I sent the email as instructed and haven't heard back. The photo is still not back. Is there someone else I can contact? This is very frustrating.

7.12.07

Today I received an email from Wikipedia that they got my email about the permissions. Please reinstate the photo. Thanks

7.16.07

Done. Please add {{PermissionOTRS-ID|TICKET NUMBER HERE}} to Image:Traceywalter.jpg. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi, I saw you archived my last message. See here, so just a reminder in case you missed the message. In case you decided to ignore it, that's fine, I would probably ignore mess like this too. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Brunokirby2.jpg. Since you participated in the original discussion, I thought you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nv8200p talk 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

PUI listing change

(I think I mistakenly edited your archive 10 to say "flip the switch", but you seem to have gotten the message anyways?)

Everything seems to be working okay. I haven't tested it myself, but I don't see any complaints. I'm gonna change the format of how images are listed as well. You can see the example at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 3, but basically it should be:

===== [[:Image]] =====
*User text. ~~~~

Fairly simple, but being able to edit the image section directly instead of the whole page is helpful, especially in a large day and you have to search and, ugh. No immediate need to change this, I can do it manually until you get the script figured out. Hopefully people will start doing it if they're listing them manually. MECU≈talk 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat species name

Hi Howcheng, I'm trying to get the Cat article to reflect that the species name is F. silvestris. I use the same arguments as you, with the addition of the recent Science article. My edits are reverted by a couple of bullies who refuse to cough up citations, so if you could, please add your opinion to the talk page. Thanks. Speciate 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick image delete

Howcheng, had a suggested addition to the script - adding {{noncommercial}} to an image page and {{Idw-noncom}} to uploader's talk page for non-commercial use only images. Just an idea... Videmus Omnia 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Home Page?

Is it possible to make Wikipedia Main Page your Homepage? Please get back to me on my Talkpage user talk: krummy2

Krummy2 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MainPage images

Really sorry to bother you again. I'm not going be able to do image protection for the next several days, until July 10 UTC, so please keep an eye on it for me. Thanks.--Pharos 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be out of service again till July 23 or probably 24 so please take care of things (Is there someplace else I should be posting these things?). Thanks.--Pharos 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

update DYK

Hi, can you update again? I also re-wrote the hooks for Rieger Orgelbau and Prashant Tamang, so can you make sure they make sense? Let me know if I'm bugging you too much, it just seems like you're usually here around the time I notice that the DYK are late. Rigadoun (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I haven't been keeping an eye on DYK lately, having been doing more deletion work at IFD and PUI, but I'm always available to do DYK if I'm around. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It turns out the hook I provided for Rieger Orgelbau isn't quite accurate, and the user has requested it be changed to his original at WP:ERRORS. On second thought, I agree his is more accurate. Could you help me change the template? Rigadoun (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

the DYK image

Once again, I fail to understand why the image from Moyie (sternwheeler) is preferred to that from Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition. But you should probably know better... --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't pick them for Next Update this time. You'll want to talk to User:Camptown for this one. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question

It's about a couple of images such as this one Image:BlairKoizumi.jpg that have been tagged the same way. Does the red template imply that I can remove it if no admin deletes it tomorrow, or do I have to wait for an admin to remove the templates even if the 1 week expires? John Smith's 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to wait for an admin to remove it. The big red template just warns that the earliest it can be deleted is July 5 (i.e., you have until that long to respond to it). Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

about the Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg and ..

How do you think about the Image:Nanjing1937 BabyOnTracks.jpeg. I think that it is in same condition with the Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg. May you help me to put it on the argument? --Hare-Yukai 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That image will probably be deleted in favor of the known-to-be-free Image:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif. howcheng {chat} 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick Image Delete

Thanks for the note. I'm a little unclear on installation. Am I supposed to be pasting in the full text on the project page or just the abbreviated text on the talk page? Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just force a reload on your browser. Ctrl-F5 for IE, Ctrl-Shift-R for Firefox. Not sure what it is for Safari, Opera, or KDE. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My departure

Howard...

I wonder if you could do me a favour. I have now determined that it is time for this personna to depart from Wikipedia. There have been a few issues, and an email recently, that convinced me that Gay Cdn should die, metaphorically of course.

If (Who am I kidding...) When I decide to return, I think a fresh start and a new focus on article creation would be in order - let the image work die; it is going to end up take a lawsuit against WP by a copyright holder to get final and proper inforcement of the the non-free image debacle.

On to my request, would you please perminatly ban User:Gay Cdn to prevent any issue with opening a second account or sockpuppet concerns. Keep up the good fight. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's awfully sad to hear. We'll miss your help in clearing out all the unused images, that's for sure. However, there's no real reason to block your account (and I don't think it's policy to do when someone exercises their right to vanish). Multiple accounts by a single person are not against policy in and of itself; it's only when they are used to create an image of consensus that doesn't really exist that we have a problem. Stick {{retired}} on your user page, make sure your password is secure to prevent any crackers, and just don't use it anymore (or maybe log in to it every now and then to check messages or use it for testing). I'm sure your new incarnation will be as productive as your current one has. We'll welcome you back with open arms at IFD if you decide to drop in again there (even if we think you're somebody else hehe). Take care. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi, please let me know if you have seen that email I sent about the photo rights. I have not gotten a response from wikipedia. Thanks

Talk to User:Mecu who is one of the people who deals with the OTRS queue. Tell him the image name, the subject of the email, and when you sent it. He will take care of the rest. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 02:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture on Criticism of the Quran

Its good to see that you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia out of copyright trouble, but I think this edit of yours was not justified. There's no such thing as "a non-free image cannot be used in tangential text", 2nd, this is not tangential text. Its criticism of the Quran and very relevant to that section and its being discussed in the article. How does not qualify for fair use? (Link for its IfD) --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging tool

Dude, your image-tagging tool rocks my world. Hard. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, works like a charm. Thanks from me too. Garion96 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Public domain status in DRW for Image:JudgeCasey.jpg

I think you either misunderstood me, or are wrong.

Maybe you refer to other state governments, outside the USA. In which case yes, not all governments release their works into the public domain.

But if you refer to the USA, you should learn that by law the US government cannot create copyrighted works, and by extension, all original material created by US (Federal or State) government is in the public domain. In which case your comment was completely wrong.

See: Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S._government_photographs

The US government can and does own copyrights over certain works, for example stock photography created by third parties, or photographs from news-wires for use in government media. But these are transfered copyrights or use-licenses and not original works.

The bulk of official portraits, such as those used to adorn judge's chambers, are in the public domain because they are either produced by US government employees or by contract not subject to copyright. They are original works of the USA's government and hence by definition in the public domain. Period.

BTW, the US Federal government and most state governments do produce huge amounts of public domain graphics, some of which is intended for public release.

See: http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Graphics.shtml

Some US government graphics, however, are subject to special laws that control their use, such as the Seal of the President, the graphics used in currency, etc, but these laws are not copyright laws, and do not affect the public domain status of these works under the laws that apply to the GFDL.

Please take care, in discussions that affect the legal liabilities of Wikipedia regarding content, to fully understand the legal and wikipedia policy status of things before you speak about them. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different things. Works of the U.S. federal government are of course in the public domain. This is unquestioned. I'm talking about works created by governments of the various states within the U.S., such as New York, California, etc. These works are usually copyrighted by the states. From Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S._government_photographs, which you link to above: "Also, most state and local governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work" (emphasis mine). And as I am an administrator who specializes in images and their various policies as well as an administrator on Commons, where image copyrights are of the utmost importance, I am rather well-versed in these sorts of topics, but thank you for your concern. howcheng {chat} 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, individual states have their own laws on copyright, which are mostly impossible to determine until a court rules on the matter. AFAIK only Florida has verifiable PD for its works [1] [2]. It also disturbs me the English Wikipedia version of this template has been blanked, because it was misapplied. I wonder if this shouldn't be rectified. -N 02:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted pictures

Two pictures Image:Mineko_Iwasaki.jpg and Image:Jung Chang.jpg were both deleted because they were deemed to fail fair use rationale, or something (WP:CSD#I7).

Could you do me a favour and possibly find out specifically why it was deemed to fail this? I pointed out on both pictures that there was no free version available. Also how can I avoid this if I re-upload them - i.e. what appropriate tags and rationale to use?

Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, John Smith's 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They were deleted because they were deemed replaceable? Then maybe the deleting admin would like to point me in the direction of the free images because I don't see any. Otherwise one could delete almost every picture tagged as fair use - I can't prove a negative (that there are no free use pictures).

Is there anything I can do to avoid when re-uploading to avoid this circus, or is it a case of pot-luck? Maybe you could make some suggestions over copyright tags and rationale? John Smith's 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

please dont delete the Beatles last concert pic. It's a piece of history and great to see it on wikipedia. 68.174.88.63 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

05:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)dmode

Deletion photos and policy

I think there are two issues with photos, first the copyright issues(which I always make sure I follow) and then the wiki policy issues, in reference in Linda Ronstadt subject page, I believe the policy is flawed. However, I made the following arguements in the discussion page.

This image of Linda Rosntadt is not replaceable because no freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information, which is her in concert at the height of her fame - as she was the first female rock concert star and this picture identifies it completely. Again, a photo needs to be placed in the intro just like photos in Fleetwood Mac, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra Sly and the Family Stone subject pages. So I suggest that this one remain. Again the policy is that the photo might be found well might is different from can be found. This is bad policy subject us to remove a photo over a might. Well no freely licensed image could reasonabvly be found that provides the same informaton. And you know what the information is the first female rock concert star and this picture identifies it completely at the height of her fame, this cannot be replaced.

My other arguement with the policy "unless it is determined to be un-replaceable, " this statement puts the burden on whoever wants to replace the photo with proving that a photo exist, then you can replace it with another photo- prove you can find it and then remove the photo. I suggest that you go to Fleetwood Mac, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra Sly and the Family Stone subject pages and put the same notation on them or I will because there will be an intro photo on the Ronstadt subject page.(Sharkentile 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)).

Has anyone tried to contact Miss Ronstadt or her publicist to obtain a freely licensed image? I've had good luck with requests like that occasionally. Videmus Omnia 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of images even dead people...like Image:JohnProfumo.jpg...this is over policing and leading to depreacration of the wikipedia. What are young people supposed to do visit the library? The JohnProfumo.jpg is widely in free use across the Internet. He brought down the UK government. There has to be more sense applied to image deletion. dmode 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this photo was taken by the Press Association, who make money by selling licenses for it. Our use of it here is depriving them of a market opportunity. As to the answer for your question, what are young people supposed to do? If the picture is all over the Internet as you say, then Google is an easy way for them to see the picture, don't you think? Just because another site is willing to engage in a copyright violation doesn't mean that we should do it too. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Howcheng. . You obviously have time and are intent on deprecating the wikipedia rather than applying common sense to image file deletion. Consider making a bot to flag all image files for deletion. Regarding young people using the Wikipedia for educational encyclopedia sources you actions to remove image files will put further emphasis on Google images, but without quality wiki writing to give context. You and Abu really take the biscuit. Because of the attention you draw to John Porfumo - Mr. Abu evens flag an image Oracle Corp clearly makes available for free use. You win. I bow out. Have the Wikipedia to over policing types. I'm off to some site where photos can be posted with free speech. You’re killing the Wikipedia. No barn-stars from me. You get the barn-door. dmode 08:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Fan mail! howcheng {chat} 06:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Battery Point Light

The only closer shot of the lighthouse (Image:Battery_Point_Lighthouse.jpg) I have is here, it is the lighthouse. The little "steeple" is where the light is. I'll license the other one under public domain if it's a better shot.Darius 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get any closer? howcheng {chat} 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't live there any more, but I have family there. I know we have a bunch of close-up pictures of it somewhere, I'll ask my dad. Darius 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MSU Spartan Marching Band... Backbend image

Why is the image of the backbend on the "Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band" up for deletion. The image shows the drum majors doing the bend, which is a key part of the pregame show. When a drum major falls or has to brace themselves with a hand, you can actually hear people in the crowd react. I'd say that qualifies for importance and relevance to the subject.

-mick

Because it's a copyrighted non-free image. Someone could take a free photo of it and upload it to Wikipedia -- there's no point in violating someone else's copyright to show the picture. howcheng {chat} 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Nose Kate

Image:BigNoseKateat17.jpg is a photo from all across the web, for example [3]. It was taken in 1867 and is thus 140 years old. There is no conceivable way it could still be under anybody's copyright, and has been published in numerous places freely for more than half a century. SBHarris 08:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but you still need a source. At the very least, we want to be able to certify that the picture is what you say it is. Think of it like adding a cited reference to a {{fact}} tag in an article. howcheng {chat} 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can you use the link I provided above? It's a source, and I haven't been able to figure out how to just "add" it to the image file, without re-uploading the whole thing. SBHarris 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram.svg

there is a problem with the image in the PotD template. SVG must be changed of size sometimes so that they show correctly, sometimes is about one or 2 pixels diference. is there a way to do so in the template? otherwise the image will not show. i tryed reloading it already and with ?=purge comand and nothing.-LadyofHats 10:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) - ok i think i got it finally but had to relaod it like 6 times-LadyofHats 10:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8

Was there really consensus for this? I'm looking through the talk page and don't see any sign of that, but maybe I'm being stupid. Videmus Omnia 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - got my answer already. Videmus Omnia 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Username Nikkis

I'd like to create an account with the name Nikkis (I've the same account in the german wikipedia) But there is a user, who calls NikkiS. But he is not activ. Can you request the account for me, please? Thanks: 84.131.252.58 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations for help. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cropped versions of deleted image

Hello, I see that you were the admin that deleted Image:Paul Keating portrait.jpg. Two cropped versions of that image were included in the discussion, Image:Paul Keating crop.jpg and Image:Paul Keating crop2.jpg but have not been deleted. The first was added to the nom, but the second came up in the course of discussion (I think). I don't know if they need to be relisted or what. I figured I'd ask you as the closing admin. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. howcheng {chat} 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Missed images

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 20#Cpr j images has not been dealt with... hbdragon88 01:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Submission image

This image here, how is it not justified for fair use in the Criticism of the Qur'an article? A number of people are now removing the image (probably because WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and giving no reasons as to why its not fair use. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The reasons are given in the talk page. We should respect the decisions of XfD and if we don't like it, it should go through the proper channels - WP:DRV in this case. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV is only for images that have been deleted. This is not the case here. Howcheng, let me know how we should proceed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

input?

Can I get your input on something? I tagged all of the images at List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes as lacking rationales, honestly expecting the WP:SPA that uploaded them not to come back. They did, and have rationaled all of the images identically, saying that "Image's purpose is to represent the show's episode title." and "Image replacement is not available.". As these images are all primarily being used in the list, w/o any critical commentary or even any reference, I feel that they easily fail WP:NFCC#8. But I don't want to go through each individual image again and {{ifd}} them, that would be excessive and further would raise wardog108 (talk · contribs)'s--ire that I'm not inclined to sit through just yet. What do you suggest? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Portal:Jurassic Park & its creator:

Hi Howcheng - noticed you dealt with image issues, so thought I might ask you for advice on this problem: I recently found the mentioned portal after it was linked to the portal I maintain. I checked it out & saw it had a number of problems which were in violation of the fair use policy among others. Firstly, none of the pictures on the portal (all of which are fair use) have fair use rationale. I expressed this to the user (User:Cuddly Panda) who has been the sole contributor of the portal with no reply. On closer inspection, it seems the user has been uploading & adding fair use images to wikipedia for some time now, possibly upwards of a year, & despite numerous warning from automated bots etc, has now seemed to learn from this or the links provided or ceased their image infringements. Just check out the user's talk page - nearly every message is a message about the misuse of uploads. In addition to this, the portal is very poor in quality, unmaintained and relies heavily on unfree images and poor portal sections (some of which have already been nominated for deletion). So I wanted to ask you what action I could take next. There's a few options:

1) Obviously the user is not listening to warnings & my messages, so could I possibly bring this up at the administrator's noticeboard? They could then decide what to do next.

2) Since sections of the JP Portal are being nomianted for deletion already, I could potentially nominate the whole portal at MfD with a vote of "no opinion". This would see what other editors think of the portal & even if it is kept, the portal's fair use pictures problem would still be sorted out by the end of the nomiantion.

3) I'll probably do this anyway, but the user is on Editor Review & I could also place a note there explaining what the user is doing wrong & how to remedy this.

So, I'd personally like to do all three, but if you can think of something else & help me decide which of those, if any, to carry out, it would be appreciated. I'll post this to another admin just to get a second opinion as well. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures needing to be processed

Hi. I've tagged some images that are scheduled for review. I was wondering if you could process the following for me:

They were up for deletion review on Sunday, so I would have thought they'd be done by now. There's also this:

I used a "slower" tag before I realised there was a faster one to use. This is orphaned and copyrighted with no fair use rationale (also not necessary now as there are free pictures available). I don't know if you could speedy delete it, or delete otherwise?

Thanks, John Smith's 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can do it, but what's happening here is that CAT:NS is just backlogged. I haven't been patrolling that recently (it's kind of tedious to do all those deletions) but I'll take care of these for you. In the future, there's no need to notify anyone, as someone will get around to do taking care of them sooner or later. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, np. Thanks for helping out. John Smith's 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:2006_MML_Winners.jpg

You have just deleted this image without any warning. I happen to know that this image was added by one of the people concerned with the club and if you were to email them they would give their permission. Could you please restore the image?GordyB 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't restore it without proof of release. You can email them yourself (especially considering I don't have the email address of someone who could legally do the release). See WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Authorising use of pictures on wikipedia

Hi. I've got a problem. I've had a look here at the current system for getting authorisation to use pictures on wikipedia. However, the person in question is too confused by the page and I do not quite understand it myself. In addition the author said:

Hi. Sorry this has all got so complicated. I am happy for the photo to appear in Wikipedia. The following sentence from the form I cannot accept:

"I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs."

Is there any way a person can give permission to use the image in question without waiving this specific right? It seems very unfair to suggest an author must give up this right just to allow them to use the image on wikipedia.

Please respond on my talk page. John Smith's 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if he'd be willing to put a smaller version up for free license. John Smith's 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

No, I got all that. I just reverted my message after you'd already read it. Thanks anyway. John Smith's 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Stone MP Image deletion

Can you please advise why you removed this image?

Ownership of this photo remains with Ms Stone and her permission has been sought for the photo to be used for this purpose.

Please restore this image to the page.

See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 8#Image:Barb_head.JPG. It was a suspected copyright violation. If Ms Stone wishes to release her photo under a free license, please have her fill out a declaration of consent and forward that to the OTRS system. Once the release has been verified, I will be happy to restore the image. howcheng {chat} 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Kuh Ledesma images

• Need your advise for Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSingerRodsan18a.jpg. What's the best tag for this? Thanks, Dragonbite 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• And advise for this one too, please: Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSinger. Thanks again. Dragonbite 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Greetings! I hope you don't mind if I offer my advice. Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSinger.JPG is tagged appropriately; it is a {{Non-free album cover}}. It does not currently, however, add significantly to the article (in my opinion). For example, why is it under the "1990s" section, when the single "Dito Ba" is mentioned under the "Philippine and international music industry" section?

My reply for this section: Thanks. Finally someone who would really offer advise/opinions instead of simply tagging/disputing/removing image uploads. I placed this image on proper location. Dragonbite 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSingerRodsan18a.jpg, however, is not tagged appropriately. It is a "derivative work" of Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSinger.JPG and, as such, is subject to the copyright of the original album cover. For more information on derivative works, including a legal definition, see Commons:Derivative works. If you intend to use it, I would recommend tagging it with {{Non-free album cover}} and note that it is a derivative work of Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSinger.JPG. I would recommend, however, not using it. In my opinion, it is not very encyclopedic to use an image that has been manipulated beyond simply fixing scratches, dust marks, etc. If you are having trouble finding an image of Kuh Ledesma, there are several images at Flickr (but make sure that they are freely-licensed; that is, under the heading "Additional Information", that only one or both of the following images appear: ).
• If none of the Flickr images are free, you could try contacting the photographers, or contacting Kuh Ledesma through her website. For more information about contacting copyright holders, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Commons:Email templates. Hope this helps! --Iamunknown 18:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Already tried getting free images from flickr and the website mentioned loooooo-o-o-o-o-oooong time ago. I sent two emails (one a follow-up) actually. But no response. Made changes based on your suggestions above. Thanks. Dragonbite 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

Can you update the DYK? It should be ready to go. Also, do you think the picture for smoking is negative? The author of the article and the painter (Vincent van Gogh), both smokers, didn't think so, but Yomanagi put a comment about it. You can see their discussion in this diff (I removed it when I moved it to next update). Rigadoun (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I contributed an image: "Image:HandReachingforaLitCigaretteRodsan18a.JPG". It's now in the article page. If you want to use it for DYK appearance, go ahead... Dragonbite 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK:pandaka pygmaea

Hi. Just a reminder: Shouldn't there be a DYK banner on the talk page of this article, since it appeared on DYK/Main Page today, 19 July 2007? Thanks. Dragonbite 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I stuck it at Talk:Dwarf pygmy goby, not realizing that was a redirect. 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:StockDayAd.jpg

Howard, I don't know whether you saw my edit here, but can I ask you to reconsider this close? I think it was premature, because I think there were further points to discuss.

I'd rather see them discussed on IfD, where I think people are fairly clued up on fair-use and WP:NFCC, rather than WP:DRV where I fear people may be rather less so.

Cheers, Jheald 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Script issue

I recently tagged Image:Staff06Wade2.jpg with a "no license" tag using quickimagedelete. The user talk message is a bit jumbled, though – it links to Image:Image:Staff06Wade2.jpg. hbdragon88 23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I dunno. I did the same thing with my test account and it worked fine for me. Oh, but you have Opera, don't you? Call it a hiccup, maybe. It hasn't been consistently like that for you, has it? howcheng {chat} 00:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't regularly tag no license issues (usually it's "no source" for me), but i'll try tagging a few more images and see if that is a recurring problem. hbdragon88 03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just went through category:GFDL images (it's super sad to see so many orphaned images, obvious personal images uploaded by drive-by editors who ought to take it to Photobucket or Imageshack), same problem with all three. hbdragon88 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So "no source" works fine but "no license" doesn't? That makes no sense ... they're both handled in the same portion of code and the only real difference is which template is applied. Hmm... let's check {{image copyright}}. Ah yes, there's the problem. I reverted back and am in discussion with User:AzaToth about this. howcheng {chat} 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused...

... how is smoking a new article? See this diff. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of tobacco smoking. Here's the first edit on smoking from July 14. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Award

Moved to user page

Manzanar

Hey Howard...Manzanar finally passed GA (damn that was a lot of work!) but now, there's a "raging" debate about the terminology...the age-old one we've been through before, time and time again, going back to your days in Yuji's class! Anyway, please drop by and add your two cents to the debate on Talk:Manzanar. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Gmatsuda 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Do me a favor and reply here. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks! Gmatsuda 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA status! I've got four under my belt now, but I don't see any more in the near future since I've been up to my neck in image policy. Anyway, with regards to Manzanar, I'm going to go with User:Will Beback and User:HongQiGong here. Most of this stuff doesn't belong here, but in Japanese American internment (and yes, I know what a pain that talk page has become). It would be best if the latter covered all the different terms and explained the various positions surrounding "internment camp", "concentration camp", and "relocation camp", backing up those positions with reliable sources. You have to realize that I'm probably speaking to you more as an admin than as a J-A advocate for two reasons: 1) that's my job here, and 2) it's been so long since I've been involved with J-A community issues that I'm so out of the loop and not recently read up on the history. Also, I've got some questions here too, like shouldn't much of the "Manzanar before WW2" section be moved to Owens Valley? And why isn't this article at Manzanar War Relocation Center like the other camps, or Manzanar National Historic Site like other NHS articles? Small quibbles, though. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're headed the way User:Will Beback and User:HongQiGong have suggested. Gotta figure out how to write it though.

Heh...I didn't even realize that you were an admin (bowing in the general direction of the West Valley/Westlake Village/Thousand Oaks/on up towards Santa Barbara...that direction). :-)

Regarding your questions...the Manzanar National Historic Site deals with more than just the WWII history of the area. It interprets the history of the Owens Valley Paiute, the ranchers and the town of Manzanar, and of course, the camp days. IMHO, if they are actively interpreting all that, it seems logical and appropriate that the Manzanar article deal with it as well. The reason that it's not at Manzanar War Relocation Center is that it is the only one of the ten camps to become a National Historic Site (Minidoka is a National Historic Monument, and Heart Mountain recently became a National Historic Landmark). FYI: I didn't have anything to do with the naming of the article. That was done before I discovered it :-) And as you said, "small quibbles."

As an aside, if I can ever get Manzanar to FA status, my next article will be Los Angeles Kings. After that, I doubt I'll have the patience to contribute that much to other articles. :-) Gmatsuda 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your image tagging tool - fantastic, but . . .

Hey, someone told me about this a few days ago. It's fantastic. Thanks for creating it. One small complaint is that it tags an image a second time if I use the "back" button on my browser to get back to the page I was on before I tagged the image, unless I press "back" "back" in very rapid succession. Can you make it work less quickly? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not possible, given the way it works. The way to do it is to click and hold down the back button (or a little down arrow next to it, if available in your browser), which should bring you a menu of pages you previously visited. Then you can select the correct page from the menu. A lot of browsers also support alt-left arrow to mean "back" also, so you could hit that twice in succession as well. Alternatively, on the image description page, you can scroll down to the "File links" section and just click back to get to the article you were in. Hope that helps. howcheng {chat} 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll try that next time. But my remarks about it being a fantastic tool still stand! ElinorD (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg

This image has recently passed a somewhat "controversial" nomination. In the light of some of the issues discussed there, and particularly the fact that the vast majority of our readers will not understand why this image is particularly valuable to us (that it is free content), I would ask you to consider two possible options: (1) foregoing to feature this on the MainPage, as it might become a significant embarrassment if it's misunderstood (Raul has said we will not place certain FAs on the MainPage) or (2) using this as an opportunity to shamefacedly promote free-content, by emphasizing this (and the unusualness of the donation) somewhat beyond the normal degree in the POTD caption.--Pharos 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting idea, but wouldn't it be a little too self-referential? howcheng {chat} 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, perhaps yes, but by putting this image up we can in my opinion give one of two distinct impressions to our readers—either OMG, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of 14-year old boys/misogynists/commercial interests!!!, or (and this is the one I'd prefer), OMG, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of people with interesting ideas about intellectual property I've never heard of before!!!. Without an explanation in the caption, readers will just not understand why this image is considered "among Wikipedia's best work". I'm not saying we should necessarily go into total propaganda mode, just that really the unusual donation of this photo as free content should be mentioned in a way analogous to how one would describe the circumstances of the photography of a rare event.--Pharos 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I co-nominated the image and enthusiastically advocated its promotion -- but I don't care whether it's featured on the Main Page or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting free images

Howcheng, I just finished a how-to on requesting free images, feel free to use whatever is helpful or to pass around. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your picture of Hitler

I saw that you uploaded Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg for Adolf Hitler. While I will acknowledge that it is perhaps the best hope we have for a picture of him, I'd best inform you that that picture had been removed from Wikimedia Commons previously as they didn't know about the copyright in Germany. You might have to fight to keep it on at some point. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's a problem for Commons because over there, it's required that the image be PD in both its home country and the U.S. For en-WP, PD in the US only is good enough. howcheng {chat} 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.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. -Nard 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The German heirs sold their rights to the Hoffmann collection to an American, who then found his rights worthless under U.S. law. I'm wondering if that wouldn't make the images usable on Commons if we decided that U.S. law did in fact control the copyright status? -Nard 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, something to bring up at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing maybe. howcheng {chat} 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I did further research and apparently the German heirs have had to turn to the US courts because a US-German treaty waived any claims against the US government for this. I can't see any reason these images can't be used on Commons (I've started a discussion there). Nomination withdrawn. -Nard 01:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Past doctors.jpg

Greetings. I noticed you closed the debate here with the decision to delete Image:Past doctors.jpg, but it doesn't look like it was ever deleted. Just wanted to make you aware of that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the image on DRV. I don't think you closed it properly at all. Will ^(talk) 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Logo4bucks.png

I see that you deleted Image:Logo4bucks.png at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 18#1.14 Image:Logo4bucks.png because it was "orphaned anyway". I just want to bring to your attention that it was only orphaned because the user who proposed the deletion took it off of the template when he proposed it, and I was waiting until there was a response from the images for deletion until I re-added it. So, basically, whether or not it was used currently on the template should not matter here, as it was simply that one editor who believed that it shouldn't be used, took it off, and proposed it for deletion. I'm looking forward to hearing back from you. Thanks!  hmwith  talk 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

That image was so obviously in the public domain and was of essential usage on wikipedia. The policy 10 point list is vague and the debate was in favour of keeping it. I think your interpretation was in a minority and unsubstantiated. -- maxrspct ping me 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand what public domain means. It does not mean "widely available on the Internet"; it is a legal term meaning that there is no copyright holder. In this case, there is a copyright holder: the Iraqi government. Perhaps the Baathist state that was run by Saddam Hussein no longer exists, but those copyrights were transferred to the new government. IFD is different than other deletion forums in that the policy is far stricter, but feel free to run this to WP:DRV if you wish. howcheng {chat} 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with max, the image is necessary for showing a fact and most the users who participated in that debate favoured it to be remained. I will go wp:drv, if nobody doest that. --Pejman47 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use an image that the rest of the world assumes is public domain, even if there is no one left to challenge the use, unless it is absolutely clear the image is in fact public domain. Either the expiration of a set number of years (usually 70 years after the author's death) or a court decision is needed. We have a different outlook on respecting copyright than most people do. -Nard 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ,regardsPejman47 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP Zimbabwe

Together we can make the world a better place.

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Horse skeleton image

Man do I hate to rain on the parade of an attractive image, but Have you looked CLOSELY at that skeleton diagramImage:Horseanatomy.png? I noticed that it has some SERIOUS inaccuracies (like mislabeling the sacrum as part of the lumbar and coccygeal vertebrae and saying that the horse has a collar bone when it doesn't!) It needs some relabeling and fixing. It's almost so bad we should consider removing it if we can't fix it, which is a real bummer because it's so clear... YIKES!!!! A couple examples that are more correct: http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrho/images/education/horse_skeleton.gif and http://www.classicbloodstock.com.au/skillsEDIT/clientuploads/39/horseskeleton.jpg Some of the terms aren't identical (cannon bone is either the metacarpal or metatarsal, etc.) but they are all correct. You may want to consult User:Dlh-stablelights on this, he is a vet. Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just write the POTD captions from the articles. I didn't even participate in that Featured Picture nomination. The person you want to be talking to is User:WikipedianProlific, who is the creator of it. I'm sure he would be more than willing to make any necessary corrections. howcheng {chat} 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin close

I'm sorry you feel my close set a horrible precedent, and I appreciate you bringing your concerns to me. But just because I don't actively participate in policy discussions does not mean that I don't read them (in fact, I read them rather obsessively). I closed this discussion in good faith and I stand by my interpretation of policy and the consensus in the discussion. You clearly have an interpretation of Wikipedia's image policy that many other respected users (it doesn't matter if they are admins are not) do not share. If you feel I am misusing my administrative tools, feel free to raise this issue at WP:AN or elsewhere. Regards, IronGargoyle 07:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey! POTD

Thanxs for the notice on Template:POTD/2007-08-04! I added a bit on the nine member crew. Does it look alright, or sound a bit awkward? =) Jumping cheese 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

reply

Please talk to anetode. For fair usage, all you need is the id of the copyright holder. This is not an appropriate candidate for GFDL - she's a murdered girl, there won't be more news, it is historical. This should have been resolved long ago. BlueSapphires 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments to Abu Badali

• Dear Mr Howcheng. I would like to let you know that your comment and barnstar on Abu badali's page was inappropriate. I believe that "congratulating" such a user is a bit out of line and that your veiled threat towards editors like myself was pretty low. Considering you have been known to back Abu badali and delete images he has nominated while appearing to disregard the opinions myself and others, I think this is pretty unfair. Kind regards, PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• (and apologies for my previous incivil message) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering that neither I nor ArbCom think he has done anything wrong and that he has been subject to a ridiculous amount of personal criticism for attempting to uphold the free content ideals of Wikipedia, a certain amount of vindication is not uncalled for. howcheng {chat} 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• What about concerns not about "upholding the free content ideals of Wikipedia" but about other facets of his behaviour (considering comments about this were largely ignored)? Nevermind, there's no point rehashing this. Noone can ever convince me that the Arbcom decision was the right one, but you are welcome to your opinion. I would however advise that you lay off veiled threats about "remedies against those who initiated the arbcom". Adios, I leave you in peace. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That was not a veiled threat. This is just like your earlier accusation of "taunting" -- you are reading far too much into this. I said and meant nothing about taking any such against you myself. howcheng {chat} 22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi Howcheng - if you have a moment, I wonder if you could help me out with a deletion on commons? This image is part of a deletion request on Wikiversity that I would like to complete soon, but I'm unfamiliar with how things work on commons. If you could let me know your thoughts on this, that would be great. --HappyCamper 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --HappyCamper 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of The Igloo

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Igloo, by Toon05 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Igloo seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Igloo, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Twinkle placed an afd nomination here for The Igloo. I'm removing it because you created it as a redirect. I'm placing it instead on the new article's original editor's page. Sorry for the confusion. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. When I got the speedy notice above, I had absolutely no clue what it was for. :) howcheng {chat} 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

POTD

Just wondering how are POTDs selected? WP:POTD seems to suggest it's in order of being promited from FP but from a look at the archives, it doesn't seem to follow the order exactly Nil Einne 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual order I follow is at WP:FPT in reverse order (we're in the middle of Group 08), but it's a roughly FIFO order. Some things will get scheduled for specific days by request, and I try to not to put pictures of the same "theme" close to each other (like birds, or insects, or whatever), although that's not always possible. For example, in the time period I'm scheduling now, I've got a lot of animated ones, but after this flurry of animations, there's a long drought so I'm going to spread out the animations throughout this time period, if that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK need updating!

The DYK has not been updated for the past twelve hours! Chris 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I can't take care of this. I was in the middle of cleaning up a big monster image mess and now I've got to get home. I might be able to squeeze it in there, but it may not be touched for a while. howcheng {chat} 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Copyright Opinions

So now that we're finally getting official copyright advice from the WMF attorney (like here), we need a place to keep track of his opinions, so he will be less inundated with inquiries and so we can use them as precedent. I'm thinking a subpage of WP:C makes sense. What do you think? Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: ernest hemingway

What does this mean? "cannot use magazine covers without specific commentary on the cover itself." Secondly, why was this deleted without opportunity to fix the issue? Rizla 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #7. There is no commentary about the image in Ernest Hemingway. Note that the image, Image:Time Hemingway Cover by Waldo Peirce.jpg, has not been deleted because it's still validly used in Waldo Peirce. Regards, howcheng {chat} 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Britisharmy678.jpg

Why did you remove the image, before an alternative has been found?--Raphael1 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #1 mandates that non-free images are not used where we can reasonably expect a free alternative to exist or be created. We don't wait until we find a replacement and then swap it out; we just don't use the non-free image in the first place. The biggest reason is that having the non-free image there actually discourages the creation of (or search for) a free alternative. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Along the River During Qingming Festival

Hi Howcheng. The caption for the picture is fairly brief, but it is sufficient and does not lack any important details needing to be mentioned. Although it shows a tiny section and but one scene of the horizontal hanging scroll painting (the large open-spandrel segmental-arch stone bridge with storefronts), it does provide a link to the picture of the whole painting. I don't see anything particularly wrong with it, although I might insert in there somewhere a mentioning of the overall measured size of the entire painting.--PericlesofAthens 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh!

That was so sweet. Thank you! BlueSapphires 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take my response personally

I've responded strongly to your response. I must say that I get a bit emotional when it comes to the potential misuse of a picture of a dead little girl (which is what GFDL would allow to happen). Also, I'm frustrated that I went to so much trouble to get copyright ownership identification, but that is not enough, and now on to GFDL and contact the parents. I'm quite sure that this is fair use, but we'll wait and see the outcome of the decision. Cheers, BS BlueSapphires 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken at all. I understand and appreciate your efforts and I think WP needs many more diligent editors like you. I just want you to understand my position, which is that free content is such an important goal that we shouldn't be using any non-free items except where necessary, and if we can educate others as to why this is so important, even the parents of murdered children, so much the better (and before you accuse me of being insensitive, I have two daughters myself, so I'm not ignorant of what my request means). howcheng {chat} 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Obtained / Upload of Amy Image?

Hi Howcheung! We got fair use permisssion from Ohio School Pictures. Release from Ohio School Pictures to use photo of Amy Mihaljevic in the Wikipedia Article (implied Fair Use Release)

Can you please reupload the image again? I'd do it, but I'm quite busy.

Blue BlueSapphires 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning you

Here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Broadway Tower POTD

Hi Howcheng,

Thanks for the heads-up about this POTD. I've made a minor copyedit to the caption and added the height of the tower - hope that's OK with you. Not been around the FPC page (or anywhere else on WP) for a while, but I hope all's well. Take care, --YFB ¿ 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it

I have a reply here about the recently deleted ZhouXuanCDrelease.jpg. Benjwong 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Along the River During Qingming Festival PotD

Hey Howcheng, just as a heads-up, the detail you picked for the PotD is just the object that differs the most between the 18th century copy and the 12th century original—the stone bridge, which in the original (see detail here) is made of wood. We should pick a different detail or alternatively adjust the caption accordingly. I would fix it myself, but when I worked on the picture it had the habit of locking up my creaky old computer for half an hour, so I'm loath to open it again... And as usual, thanks for taking care of the PotD's. ~ trialsanderrors 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the plunge and changed the picture. Feel free to revert. ~ trialsanderrors 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Zzyzx11's MainPage image protection system

Yeah, I had meant to tip you off to this earlier. The one thing Zzyzx11 told me to keep in mind is that it's not continually updated, so if someone changes the image, the new one will not be protected.--Pharos 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Goose head pic

Hi Howcheng - I moved the pic to domesticated goose as it is more relevant there; the Swan Goose page is primarily about the wild species, not domesticated forms like this - MPF 16:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The domesticated goose article was actually very badly lacking in info about Chinese geese before, so it was nice to add it there - MPF 17:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

Hy. since you'r eon, could you update DYK? If you're busy that's fine, but if you are could you protect that image over at ommons so that I can update it? Wizardman 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On it. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rosie the Riveter POTD

There are only a couple of hourse left, but if you get a chance the article referenced at the "Explained here" link on Rosie the Riveter image page has been moved by that website to http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-22_11-5456908.html . Thanks.--Pharos 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with admin User:Ohnoitsjamie on Kobe Bryant Sexual assault case

She keeps deleting the Link and info about the book Dead Women Tell No Tales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case and wrongfully claims it's "spamming". Clearly she's just a kobe fan who wants to hide information. Please report her, you can't just delete reliable source like that or info about the BOOK. It's part of the AFTERMATH of the case.

I'm sorry, but I agree. This is a new book and it really does look like advertising, giving an entire section to covering some book which hasn't garnered much attention in the press. Look, just because a book exists doesn't make it notable. Is it on the NY Times bestseller list? Have there been a lot of articles written about it? I'm a Lakers fan and subscribe to the LA Times, and I don't recall ever seeing anything about this in the newspaper, so I don't think the book is particularly notable. howcheng {chat} 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On August 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Snake River Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good to see you araound again Howcheng.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been around, just not doing DYK much, although I may show a bit more now that I'm getting a little sick of IFD again. :) howcheng {chat} 05:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominating an image for deletion using your tool

Hi, when I nominate an image for deletion using your tool, it doesn't add my signature to the talk page message it leaves for the uploader. I'm not sure it that's something that needs to be fixed in your tool or in {{Idw}}. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed {{idw}}, which I reverted so that it's consistent with the other image warning templates. Thanks for the heads-up. howcheng {chat} 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Tankini2.jpg

It looks like you deleted this image, but there is some sort of the glitch. There is a deletion log for this image here [4], but the image was not deleted, it can still be found here [5] and here [6] and it can still be used. Me5000 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the image is actually on Commons. See Commons:Image:Tankini2.jpg. I just deleted the local image description page. howcheng {chat} 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tankini2.jpg the image description page? If you look the "image" tab is red and if you click it it takes you to the deletion log. Me5000 21:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, but the image doesn't actually live here, it lives on Commons. The software is set up so that any images that are uploaded to Commons can be used on any Wikimedia project (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc) simply by using the same syntax. Now you can create an image description page for it (sometimes this is done to put the image into a category here, or for extra description that's not applicable to Commons such as Featured Pictures), which is what you've done. If you look at the log for this page, you'll notice that nobody's ever uploaded it. In contrast, look at the Commons log. Note that the image is currently up for deletion on Commons as well. You can go to the deletion discussion there (note that I've put in my two cents on that end). Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand, thank you for the explanation. I have another question about it, though. If look at this page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tankini2.jpg it has been tagged for 7 days for missing permission, so why hasn't it been deleted? Me5000 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons usually has deletion backlogs galore -- lots of works and not as many admins. In this case, I think the deletion debate probably supersedes the speedy deletion notice. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

I am taking the "Bring radicals cartoon" to deletion review; not because I think you did anything wrong, but because I think the discussion suffered from lack of participation, as a direct result of how IFD works. Note that debate on the article talk page was tried earlier and likewise resulted from lack of participation, so that approach doesn't really help. >Radiant< 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

video screen shots

I replied on my page here --Knulclunk 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Image:No [pick one's pet peeve].jpg"

Hi Howcheng. I just wanted to point out that: 1) the discussions w.r.t. Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_10#Image:George-W-BushXX.JPG_and_Image:No_bush.JPG and the related Bush image up for IfD, along with Image:No Karl Marx.jpg, are not yet officially closed yet. And 2) Image:No Karl Marx.jpg has not been deleted along with the deletion of the "No George Bush" images. The IfD for the Marx image is immediately below the IfD for the Bush images. I imagine you have a solution for this, though at the present time I'm not familiar with what it is. ... Kenosis 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Marx one has been deleted from Wikipedia, but it's still on Commons. I didn't bother with closing them because it seemed obvious that consensus was for deletion, but I add the templates if you think it's necessary. howcheng {chat} 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Idi Amin AP photo

dont delete the idi amin pic fix it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundertimes (talk • contribs)

RE: improper use of non-free image -- this image may only be used in the subject's article ^[7] That was, in fact, the subject's article, actually (an image of Idi Amin used in that entry).. But I was forced to delete it as it seems to have been an AP photo that was claimed as PD-USGov. Yes, this is how insane Wikipedia's for-profit image policy is, that instead of having the well-known, fat and insane image from his later years, we have his own propaganda image as printed in Ugandan currency. What a nomic-like-driven farce this is. El_C 12:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was one was a film poster for Rise and Fall of Idi Amin which does have its own article. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right, it's the very next edit: your IfD nomination here, which I deleted (external link.jpg). My point stands, however. El_C 07:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Video Screen Shots

Okay, so my general position is this: Any fictional work in a visual medium is naturally "entitled" to one screenshot or equivilent (i.e. any painting or series of paintings is entitled to one painting as well). Some of the "face" screenshots were probably poor choices (although many of the nom'd ones weren't faceshots, they were just "this frame not explicitly discussed in text". A music video (for example) has all kind of atmosphere, flavour, mood, whatever, that can really only be conveyed with a screenshot or two. The "upclose" face shots probably don't do an ideal job of this - but I still believe they're invaluable compared to none at all - I'm sure I'd be convinced to argue for deletion if a better screenshot were proposed (This doesn't violate 2 - unfree media that could only be replaced by other unfree media isn't a problem, I will argue). Anyways, in the end I don't really care enough about articles on songs to really push it, but it kind of peev'd me a bit, that's all. WilyD 12:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Howcheng, since I got involved with image work, I've been regularly getting messages asking why I deleted a particular image. I've usually managed to sort it out fairly amicably. I have a very nasty vomiting bug at the moment, and will be either completely absent or just making a very small number of edits a day for a while. If you look at my user page and my talk page, you'll see that I've asked people to take their queries to you or Quadell or ^demon. I probably should have asked your permission first, but I'm feeling a bit wobbly and just want to go straight back to bed. If you're busy, or have any reason to feel that this request is unwelcome, please feel absolutely free to remove your name from my two pages. I won't be offended at all. I do make mistakes, though I think they're more in image tagging than in image deletion, especially when I'm working too fast. So if you are asked about it, please feel free to undo any action of mine if you think you should. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would do it without problem, but I happen to be going on vacation for a week and will not be able to answer any questions for people, so I removed my name from your pages. howcheng {chat} 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Triac (band)

Just wondering where the text came from in the deletion page. Did you write that or did someone else write it between when I posted the article and when you deleted it? I get the hint that they aren't important enough to be on wikipedia, and i should look for another wiki.. but how important would they need to be? I mean I can reference multiple articles and webpages about them. Is it just not wikipedia style to have entries on people's favorite bands that you've never heard of?

See WP:MUSIC for guidelines for inclusion. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Bring radicals cartoon.PNG

Hello. This is just a notice that an IfD you closed is up for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 16#Image:Bring radicals cartoon.png. Best, nadav (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.Cholga^talK! 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image credits on POTDs

Hope you have been enjoying your vacation. Since you are currently the most active admin choosing the POTDs, you should know that there is a current discussion on Talk:Main Page#Photo credit for picture of the day about removing the image credits from the templates – a practice I noticed that has been going since 2004 before you or I started editing on Wikipedia. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:SnakesOnAPlane_scene.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GetUploader

Hi Howcheng, I would like to let you know that the format of the file history is now different and seems to cause the get uploader username to stop working correctly as it should. Please look into it if you can. Thanks! --Jutiphan | Talk - 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mine is toast now as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dr RA Dyer image02.jpg

Hi I see from the history of Robert Allen Dyer that the above image was removed as " Possibly unfree images/2007 July 6 and determined to be unfree)". Can you tell me why it was determined as unfree? Cheers Roxithro 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A concern was raised at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 6#Image:Dr_RA_Dyer_image02.jpg and nobody challenged it, so the default action is to delete the image. That's what happened. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2007-09-06

Thank you Howcheng for PODT notification. I think caption text is OK. --LucaG 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

problem/bug?

For some reason User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js isn't working anymore. "No source", "no license", etc. don't do anything at all; and the ones that prompt for input bring up the box, but take no action upon clicking "OK". Any reason for that? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The HTML for listing the uploaders changed, so the script is unable to find the right people now. I'm working on a fix which I expect to have shortly. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for all your work! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Quickimgdelete

Not sure if the problem is still in work - it seems to be working for me in IE (although it opens the uploader talk page in a new window as opposed to a new tab), but not in Firefox.

I have one requested improvement. There has been a lot of complaining from uploaders when they get multiple template warnings for the same issue. Also, sometimes the only revision in the file history is one that has been reduced in size (and old revs deleted), in that case, we don't want to template the reducer but the original uploader. Would it be possible to have an option to not automatically click "save" on the uploader talk page? That way, we could either replace the standard template with a custom message, simply append the new image name to a pre-existing template, or copy out the warning and place it on the correct user talk page. I think this would alleviate a lot of the WP:TEMPLAR complaints we're getting about tagging of multiple images by the same uploader. Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's currently not working for me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not working for me either. I'm using Firefox. --Coredesat 08:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It still isn't working. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is fixed now for Firefox. howcheng {chat} 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am using Firefox 2.0.0.6 ... is still doesn't work, even after clearing cache. I tried stripping out my monobook to have nothing but your script and still couldn't get it to work. --B 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, still does not work for Firefox 2.0.0.6. --Coredesat 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm still having the problem below, I'm using IE, though. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Refresh WP:TDYK page

I just picked your name off the list to alert that the page has not been updated. If you're around, refreshing it would be very much appreciated. Tiamat 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quickimgdelete script

Hey, I've just discovered the above and tried it out. I discovered that it added the IfD template twice and warned the uploader twice, but didn't actually bother listing the image, despite a prompt asking why I wanted it deleted. Any idea why? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird, this seems to be working OK for me on my non-admin test account in IE. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown Jewels

Moved to user page

Image:Railfantag

Back on 5/12/2007, my image was deleated and I was wondering if I can place the page back for the Railfan, Vanity plate, and US and Canadian license plates sections please. The Image (railfantag) was BO GM50 which is the only unit painted gold for the Chessie System Railroad. Thanks and have a good day TVSRR 04:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

quickimgdelete.js

Thanks for the update to make it compatible with the new format. I would like to suggest the following changes to add sysop support.

   if(userIsInGroup("sysop")) {
     var td = tds[3];
   } else {
     var td = tds[2];
   }

as the sysop has an extra column before the uploader column. Thanks! --Jutiphan | Talk - 03:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder! I couldn't figure out why it wasn't working for a bunch of people when it was perfectly fine from my test account. That explains it. howcheng {chat} 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard, did you consider my suggestion above (about automatic "save" on user talk pages)? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image caption 14th September

Can you please change the image caption please? I appreciate the work, and it is a great picture, unfortunately the etymology is plain wrong.

'"Ensay" is a Gaelic translation for Jesus."'

The name Ensay comes from the the Old Norse for Ewe Island - Iosa (pronounced "eesa") is the Gaelic for Jesus. There is no connection with Jesus here. --MacRusgail 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been taken care of. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

turtle image

Hello, Howcheng, Thank you for the message. I'm not sure how to improve the caption on the turtle picture. Maybe it should be added that picture was taken at Keauhou Bay in Kona, Hawaii? In any case I do not think I could edit the caption now. Looks like the caption is protected from editing. Regards.--Mbz1 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Manzanar FAC

Hey Howard...if you are so inclined, head on over to the Manzanar FAC and add your two cents. Looks like it's headed for FA status. -- Gmatsuda 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...it was promoted a couple of days ago... :-) -- Gmatsuda 08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

POTD October 4 - Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg

Hi Howcheng,

Thank you for the information about the POTD choice of my grasshopper (BTW, the "NotifyPOTD" template isn't working ;-) ). But there is a problem: this is not a desert locust but a very similar species, identified by the stripped eyes, "Anacridium aegyptum". Then, not only the caption is wrong but the picture has to be moved to the correct articles (if they exist). Should the choice for POTD still stand? Regards, Alvesgaspar 08:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. The POTD blurb just needs a rewrite then. I notice the species identification is wrong in Locust too. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

tomorrow's picture of the day

Hi. Although I can't find it stated officially anywhere, it looks to me like you're more or less the POTD director (like Raul is with FA). Please see an urgent request I've posted here. Thanks! Doops | talk 23:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Hello, Howcheng. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mogollon, New Mexico DYK nom credit

Did you know? was updated. On 17 June, 2007, a fact from the article Mogollon, New Mexico, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

See [8] --Jreferee t/c 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ending suspension?

Your comments on the ending of the suspension of WP:FPC#Four-seam_fastball_by_Chris_Young are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:PestFromGellertHill 4 50mm crop full.jpg

Hi, I see you've tagged Image:PestFromGellertHill 4 50mm crop full.jpg for {{watermark}}. I raised this very question back on July 1, 2007 and tagged it {{IMAGEVIO}}. See Image history.

However, my action was reverted by Gerion96. When I questioned him about it on his talk page here, he replied that this (c) watermark was OK, see decision here.

Since he's an admin and I'm not, naturally I yielded the point. JGHowes ^talk - 01:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Being an imagevio and watermarking are two different things. The watermark is specifically prohibited by the image use policy, but it has nothing to do with whether it's a copyright violation. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

POTD|image problem

I've just noticed that using the template {{POTD/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|image}} no longer returns the image filename correctly, breaking links using this inside an [[Image:…]] call. I suspect that something has been altered in such a way that the template now returns a newline character at the end of the filename since:

[[Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg

]]

produces the same result as:

[[Image:{{POTD/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|image}}]].

I've tried looking through template sources to find the problem but without indentation I have a hard time reading the conditional code. So what I'm going to do is revert and restore changes since yesterday (including your recent categorisations) to various templates until I track down the problem or run out of templates to try. Just thought I'd mention this in advance so my actions aren't construed as some sort of weird vandalism. ObfuscatePenguin 07:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem has now been fixed: it was the newline before the noinclude section that caused the problem, so I've deleted that in the POTD image template and will do the same to the other templates just in case the extra newline character causes problems in those too. ObfuscatePenguin 08:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic sleuthing. Thanks for your help. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quickimgdelete bug

When placing {{Imagevio}} on an image description page, the script is not including the website parameter in the template. Cheers - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

25 DYK Medal

Moved to user page

Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg

Hi howcheng, i need a little favor form you, that hitler's image i need it in spanish wikipedia because is the best image indication for the article, please can you upload it for me, because i don't knw how to do it--69.125.75.220 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's probably not public domain in Spain or other Spanish-speaking countries. The public domain status is only valid within the United States because it's been ruled as being a wartime seizure. howcheng {chat} 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Newbury Park

Who are you and what is your obsession with newbury park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.246.28 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I live in Newbury Park. You have a problem with that? howcheng {chat} 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The name is Cheng...Howard Cheng. hbdragon88 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

TFP 8 Oct

THe caption of this pic of Nazis murdering Jews has a problem on it image page. It says it happened in Russia, but if you click on "under the digital ID cph.3a02440" and go to the LofCongress site, it says Czechoslovakia. Rlevse 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. On the other hand, the USHMM says it's Vinnitsa. Not sure which one we should believe, as both can be considered reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 06:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:PO1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PO1.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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping

I've left a note at Talk:SS Red Oak Victory (AK-235) that you may want to read. Maralia 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect date

I'm sure that Tom has reliased this by now, but the link you provided to the rhodes collases is incorrect, it should be Template:POTD/2007-10-16, not Template:POTD/2007-10-15. Just an FYI :) 70.135.170.16 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you noticed that the template date you gave me was wrong. I did manage to find it anyway, but thanks for the correct link. Thanks :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another POTD template problem

Hi, Howard. I've been removing newlines from POTD templates again. I couldn't fix today's because it's locked, but I did manage to sort out {{POTD/2007-10-15}} to 2007-10-19. If there's a source template that's used for generating future PsOTD, could you please ensure that excess newlines following the template substitution output are removed there too? ObfuscatePenguin 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

{{POTDstart}} is the culprit, so I've removed the newline there. I'll take care of today's as well. Thanks again for your help. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for sorting that out—the compass rose looks much better on my user page than the garbled image wikitag did. ObfuscatePenguin 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting it up again

Hi, put up List of equine topics for deletion again. Hope I did it right this time. Would appreciate your support. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.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. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the template -- damn script! It makes things a lot easier but I always cringe on the infrequent occasions when an established user pops up. Interesting legal issues on this one. Check out the nom and let me know what you think. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

If you're not busy, DYK is ready for an update. Rigadoun (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Galdr

Thanks for accepting it for DYK!--Berig 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Sith Swords

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sith Swords, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sith Swords is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sith Swords, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grenville Diptych

I know it's rather early, but you might consider holding this one in reserve. I noticed the conversation here. Thanks.--Pharos 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning:Javascript security issue

Hi! I need to inform you that I've protected Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add tab because it allows users to add code to the javascript of other users. If you are an admin, you are still able to edit it, but if you are not an admin, please copy and paste it into your userspace to continue modifying it. We can set up a message at the old javascript page telling users to change their links. If you need help, please contact me or User:Eagle_101. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

POTD scheduling

Oh right sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a rota for FP's. Apologies, --Hadseys 10:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How to edit a FP caption?

Hello. I'd like to add some information to the caption of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Humpback Whale Feeding for when it goes on the main page. Where could I do this? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Humpback Whale Feeding, there's a section for "Proposed caption". Make your edits there. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go to it soon. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agvan Dorzhiev

Thank you so much for notifying me that a reference was made to this article in the "Did You know?" section of the Main Page today. I am really pleased it has got that attention as I do believe the story of Agvan Dorzhiev is very interesting and deserves to be better known. Thank you for the part you played in this process - it is much appreciated. Sincerely, John Hill 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)