User talk:KF/Archive 3

Archive 1 (23/8/02 - 31/5/05)
Archive 2 (31/5/05 - 23/3/06)
Archive 3 (14/4/06 - 17/8/06)
Archive 4 (20/8/06 - 27/1/07)
Archive 5 (29/1/07 - 4/10/07)
Archive 6 (7/10/07 - 29/12/07)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Rosemarie Nitribitt, which you recently created, has been 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manu propria[edit]

I had restored and expanded the article (manu propria isn't just some dead thing).

High resolution scan of Czech translation of To my people declaration with Franz Joseph m.p. starting World War I can be found on [1] (7.5 MB TIFF file, freely downloadable, scanned by a muzeum). It uses v.r, the Czech equivalent. Very likely a photo of German variant (with m.p.) can be found somewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble at LoPbN[edit]

_ _ I'm approaching you (another proof that "no good deed goes unpunished") bcz you've shown on AfD & elsewhere that you think LoPbN is worth doing right.
_ _ In 7 edits and a move in the last 2 weeks, User:Hemanshu has

removed structure features from two LoPbN pages, mostly List of people by name: Chb-Che, and
gone one step further into an edit war after i called for discussion to precede changing the status quo re practices that were introduced, respectively 4, 6, and 18 months or more ago.

_ _ Previously, he (i assume that gender primarily from his not describing a "his" on his user-page as an error) went through most of the name-entry pages 19 months ago,

deleting structure that i considered an improvement,
ignoring completely all but one request for discussion,
refusing even that one time both
- to address any of my arguments and
- to renounce his style of massive undiscussed changes,
with a tone approximating this weeks "restore saner version" rv-summary (the whole of his only response to my request for discussion on Talk:List of people by name of the question of multi-level bulleting),

and (to make a boring story relatively short) i decided then that other aspects of structure and style were more urgent than dealing with that round of bullying.
_ _ I probably could abandon those two proven measures, and the otherwise uncontested experimental one, much as i did previously, w/o ending up telling WP to shove its laisse-faire. And it also may be that i'm at fault at least to the extent of somehow ruining, 27 months ago, my potential relationship with him -- see User talk:Hemanshu/Archive 1#List-of-people-by-name Structure thru My Opinion on What Next (none of which he ever acknowledged -- unless archiving it counts). But i think WP's best interest is favored by my getting help toward something more civil and collegial than a repetition of the 19-months-ago behavior.
--Jerzy•t 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Prawy[edit]

thank you for your message, I mean all I did was just really translate, you did more work. I added some more info on the reference section, I hope it helps. all the best.. Gryffindor 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schanigarten[edit]

Another beautiful photo. By the way, I am going to visit to Vienna for the first time for 3 or 4 days in early July. I am very much looking forward to examining the cafe culture first hand. Best, Tfine80 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My girlfriend and I will be using Vienna as a homebase for our travels (we have free lodging there) until the 20th of July, and the extent of our travels in Austria are not set yet. So we should keep in touch about the possibility of meeting one afternoon -- perhaps we could do some quick cafe-hopping together. My email is (fine AT post.harvard.edu) and I would love to chat sometime. And my name, by the way, is Todd. :)Tfine80 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:OvNB.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hare[edit]

I was thinking about the famous educationist David Hare, one of the pioneers of modern western education in India and founder of many famous institutions of education such as Precidency College, Kolkata and Hare School. He is the person refered to by your link. Loom91 05:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KF -- Thanks for editing the VVV (journal) article to disambiguate my reference to David Hare. On that impetus, I created a David Hare (artist) page to fill out the links ... and now I see you've added the disambig. tag there too. Thanks again. Cheers -- Docether 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya[edit]

Thanks for the message (and I'm glad that you like the picture of my garden). I changed to the dablink versions because they're standard, and we try to aim for consistency of usage within reason. The same reason for the other change; the "search" function is available anyway, and to be honest it's not very good — it doesn't actually give all pages starting with "Soraya", in fact, but all pages that include the string "soraya" (and it often doesn't work, but offers you a Google search instead). Dab pages give links to all pages with or including the relevant title (I got the stub from the search link, in fact), regardless of inherent value.

You're right about the crater; I meant to rework the entry, and forgot. I've added it now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:C Kaufmann der-letzte-fussgaenger-heinz-erhardt II.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:C Kaufmann der-letzte-fussgaenger-heinz-erhardt II.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.102.129 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't in fact seem to be of a cover — are you sure? Both images used at Christine Kaufmann are fair-use, but neither was being used according to fair-use criteria (i.e., in articles about the film and book respectively), so I'm afraid that they've had to be removed. An appropriate fair-use photo would be a promotional image of the person herself, for example. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your frustration, you should try harder to assume good faith and to be civil. Your argument, in so far as you have one, seems to be that one should only correct a problem if one can correct every instance of the same problem oneself and at once. I'm sure that you realise that that doesn't stand up. The misuse of many fair-use images in other articles doesn't justify the misuse in Christine Kaufmann, and my inability to correct every such error doesn't disbar me from correcting this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the idea that civility allows for accusing others of being small minded and hiding behind passive constructions, your argument seems to be that, because vaguely gestured-at "other admins" (are weasel words better than passives? I ask only because I want to know) would have seen no problem in using a fair-use image in ways other than those specifically allowed for in the license, I should have done so too. It's not only as poor an argument as the one that you used before but repudiated, as a matter of fact some other editors and admins would have deleted one of the images on sight, because its license didn't match the content.

While you are clearly sensitive concerning the use of images, I should warn you that your preference for copy-editing willbring you into contact with people who are just as sensitive; be prepared to be called small-minded and petty and interfering and arrogant because you've corrected someone's spelling or grammar or style. In limiting yourself to one small area of editing you won't avoid conflict — and you don't invaidate the work of editors whose activities are wider in scope. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: 'I've stated that "for me some of your edits [...] show a certain small-mindedness'. How much more hedging does it take so that this isn't classified as an accusation?" Perhaps it didn't occur that civility might involve not saying it at all?
You said: "I was thinking of those few [admins] who, rather than deleting or removing/orphaning an image, look for ways of rescuing it, for example by recategorizing it or at least suggesting such a recategorisation. (As I suggested myself, one of the Kaufmann images is a screenshot as well as a detail from a magazine cover. And as far as the other image is concerned, I really don't understand why you consider the cover of a 'How to' book on mature beauty written by Kaufmann, whose activity in this field is mentioned in her Wikipedia biography, as 'non-fair-use of a fair-use image'.)"
First, the categorisation wasn't the issue, so recategorising is irrelevant. Secondly, the image isn't a screen shot; it's quite clearly a page from a publication. Thirdly, if you really can't understand why the second image can't be used, I suggest that you read the fair-use license which you attached to it — it gives the conditions of use very clearly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject[edit]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! --evrik 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:C Kaufmann der-letzte-fussgaenger-heinz-erhardt II.jpg)[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:C Kaufmann der-letzte-fussgaenger-heinz-erhardt II.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:C Kaufmann III.jpg)[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:C Kaufmann III.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First someone (not me) removes the two images from the Christine Kaufmann page (which had been there for quite some time, without anyone objecting), then someone else (you) comes along and tells me I may add them back again and that if I don't they will be deleted.

Well, it's not me whom you should be addressing here. It's User:Mel Etitis, who removed them and with whom I've had quite an unpleasant discussion in between the removal and the orphan messages.

See User_talk:KF#Image_Tagging_Image:C_Kaufmann_der-letzte-fussgaenger-heinz-erhardt_II.jpg and User talk:Mel Etitis#Thank you? for details. <KF> 15:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like I didn't read enough of the discussion. I regret that Mel is right - it is fair use to use the image of the magazine cover to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, or the image of the book cover to illustrate an article discussing the book in question, but other uses of these images are hard to justify under fair use. It might have been a bit much for Mel to remove the images from the articles, the {{fairusedisputed}} tag might have been better, but at the end of the day, I don't think this use can be justified. I hope you find some other images to illustrate the article. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Ustinov_is_Poirot.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:C Kaufmann 1959 1995.jpg[edit]

I'm afraid that there are three problems with the use of this image. First, you've given no source again. Secondly, the licenses are incorrect, as it's not a screen shot from a film or a television programme, but a collage that seems to have been taken from a magazine or other source. Thirdly, the two licenses in any case both clearly state that fair use is limited to articles on the television programme and film respectively. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points one and two, at least, seem to be answered by your reply to me (and yes, it looks professionally done to my untutored eye). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Sadie_Thompson.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:E Hurley.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:E Hurley.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:E Gürtler.JPG[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:E Gürtler.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Streep Silkwood.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

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

—Arniep 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Knef.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Knef.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arniep 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:C Valente.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:C Valente.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded: 21:38

OrphanBot's message ("You've uploaded an unsourced image"): 22:04

Seems you're not even given a moment to think these days, let alone time to grab a bite or answer the phone. <KF> 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:B Gigli.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:B Gigli.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This time:

Image uploaded: 0:01

OrphanBot's message ("You've uploaded an unsourced image"): 0:04

Will sanity prevail in the long run? <KF> 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Silkwood[edit]

Hi, TBH the screenshot wasn't that high quality and we do have some nice new ones of her. I wouldn't object to adding a quality screenshot/film promo photo if it is good quality and is accompanied by some good commentary on the film. Thanks Arniep 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels[edit]

Not seen you around the NovelsWikiProject for a while, have you left us. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand it was just that now Klaw has left you are clearly the only "older" member of the project, feeling just a little exposed!. Anyway all the best and thanks for getting back. By the by do you think there is any milage in an offical Novels collaboration, as in Wikipedia:Collaborations. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Literature/Did you know[edit]

I see You are active in updating that section. I have put selected article, picture to change monthly and Quotes to change weekly in Portal:Literature. Would You like to have a same change to Did you know, so You can insert DYK ahead... Just write if You want, and say if you want them updating on weekly or monthly basis. Best, feydey 13:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I cannot put it to update every 3-4 days, it's either days, weeks or months. I'll put it to weekly basis and You, me and others??? can add to future weeks some DYK info. I'll write when it's set up. feydey 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now set up, go to Portal:Literature/Did you know pick a red linked week like Portal:Literature/Did you know/Week 24 click it and add the usual "... that". Write if not clear. feydey 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it stays a red link and just displays something like Portal:Literature/Did you know/Week 34 in the main page DYK box. But I see You have filled it until week 30 (last week of July?) so there is plenty of time to write new ones. Good work. I hope this automatic thing lessens the pressure of checking the page weekly, if someone else has written something... As I see You have a break until the end of July.. :) Enjoy.

BTW I'm thinking of adding a box for anniversaries that change daily (i.e. like the main page), that means writing something for every day ahead, more work than weekly stuff. You'll get noticed when it happens. feydey 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have probably watched every episode of Nick Knatterton. Just a DYK :) feydey 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was a good point, I added the edit thing. I thought that it would be good against vandals adding nonsense, as they wouldn't know the article to vandalise (as every page has "edit this page"). feydey 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite Songs[edit]

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Literature new content added[edit]

Look for "A day in literature", and the listing in Portal:Literature/Adil archive. feydey 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning 100 Best Characters in Fiction Since 1900[edit]

Please see Talk:The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, if someone (magazine, book, etc.) compiles a list with expert input, it's a subjective list not a factual one, therefore it's copyrighted. A mere bestselling books list or similar list not requiring expert input can usually used on wikipedia. I hope this helps. feydey 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:100 Best Characters in Fiction Since 1900. <KF> 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Talk:The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time — thanks for it anyway — didn't help at all to convince me that reproducing that list here at Wikipedia is a copyright infringement. But as I have neither compiled the list nor added the article containing it I don't mind if it is deleted.

The discussion about such lists, however, is moving in ridiculous circles rather than progressing and shows, as far as I'm concerned, classic symptoms of what has been aptly named copyright paranoia: The moment you can, and do, quote the source it's a copyright infringement? The moment we mention it has been compiled by Mr & Mrs So-and-So it's no longer NPOV? Why do we have an article on that stupid term "axis of evil"? Is that NPOV?

No, it isn't because we explain in the article when, how, and by whom it has been used, which makes the article (but not the term itself) NPOV. Similarly, we explain (or rather explained) in 100 Best Characters in Fiction Since 1900 who said so when and where.

If we copied whole passages from the article where individual members of the panel describe their reasons for voting for, say, Huckleberry Finn, that might be a copyright violation. But if Professor John Smith of Anywhere University hands out a reading list to his students and we say so and reproduce it?

Anyway, it is an interesting list because of its blatant U.S. bias, and we should rather magnanimously overlook potential, and in any case minor, copyright problems and focus on l'esprit des lois to serve users by showing them what various authorities consider great works of literature. <KF> 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the list was/is hugely biased. And the copyright of lists is a tricky thing. feydey 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels newsletter[edit]

As a long time supporter of this project I thought I would let you have a look over the first draft of a new newsletter initiative. Could you see if there is obviously anything wrong with the concept or text, thanks for you help. I will ask one or two other stalwart editors before formally publishing the first issue. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks I'm still learning, sorry for the hassle Gnangarra 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:H_Zilk.JPG[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Chitty1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chitty1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Ashtray I.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashtray I.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Barry Ryan.JPG[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Barry Ryan.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Qu12.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Qu12.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006[edit]

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen & Players sequence[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your message. We have been working hard attempting to bring up the general quality of articles for novels. One of the ways to do this is provide and encourage a "largely" consistent content sequence and heading naming, this is in pattern form layed out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. We are not aiming to be dictatorial or course, but the lack of consistency and for many authors, lack of quality, leaves a bit to be desired. If you have a point for particular types or genre of novel, perhaps the thing to do would be to suggest an alternative sequence for those "genre". Again as I say we are not aiming to impose anything. If the edit's top this article didn't add any content, I also hope it didn't remove any, many editor's seem to delight in doing this. Perhaps we can debate this one out with some constructive ideas. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels importance[edit]

We probably need to talk a bit about this. Hopefully clear the air a bit. First the classification scheme is not exclusive to novels. it is part of WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP work to asses articles of "all" sorts. As such the "fit" of the scheme to all subject area will vary from subject area to area.

Carelessly labelled ! well yes I could well be guilty there, but if you know different, you or anyone can change the rating. I try my best as I'm sure most editors do.

Next, I too have my problems with WP:NOR policy which is "very" hard to keep to especially working with a field like literature. By it's nature the most available source is often the subject itself, the novel. Thus making the reading "Original Research"! However I do understand why the restriction is there and this is wikipedia, i.e. meant to be an encyclopedia and based on substantiatable information, thus far more referenced than it currently is. It is not a general free bit of webspace for random opinions. Now don't get me wrong I am NOT say that is what you are proposing, but that the constant need to reference and the need to assess quality, importance (notability) issues become necessary. The Novels part of wikipedia has until now lived a life with few people trying to raise "extreme" notability issues and registering loads on "AFD" notices. Personally I think it is only a matter of time before that happens. My belief is that the "only" way to mitigate the effects of such over zealous editing is to be a "bit" more consious of the "importance" issues ourselves.

On the particular novel and it's importance - I have already raised the rating, based on what you say, you might like to take it further. It would be really good for the novel article itself if some kind of ==Literary significance & criticism== section were added talking up the issue ("the police procedural par excellence") you raised and making use of the references section that I certainly admit that I didn't take proper account of. My only defence is that Reference sections are rarely read except in conjuction with text in other parts of an article that highlight an aspect that sparkes interest.

Oh yes, you might like to be aware that persuant to my point above there is this debate going on Wikipedia:Notability (books). I.e. notability is going to become more of an issue. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add this to Talk:Last Seen Wearing ... (Hillary Waugh novel)/Comments

Please don't add it there - it will clutter up what is meant to be a fairly succinct statment of classification. Please do add it but to the Talk:Last Seen Wearing ... (Hillary Waugh novel) general talk page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the debate comments - hope you don't mind. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating novels[edit]

Could you explain to me how the novels are rated?

No, sorry, I cannot. It's a complete mystery to me. <KF> 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:A_Beaton_Camden.JPG[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Literature/Did you know[edit]

Nice to see You back, I was getting ready for doing the next week's DYK research myself... Hope You had a nice break. Best, feydey 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leipsoi[edit]

I'm not really familiar with the Leipsoi islands, but this is the way Λειψοί is transcribed, see WP:GREEK. If Lipsi is the common name in English, then Lipsi it is, I don't know. Lipsos looks like a singular form. Markussep 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006[edit]

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive flops[edit]

Hi-- Later, the article was renamed to List of cars that were considered commercial failures, and someone else nominated it less than a month later not knowing that it was previously nominated. The result in that AfD was "delete" AdamBiswanger1 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh--unfortunetly so, KF. No double jeopardy exists on Wikipedia AdamBiswanger1 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hester Prynne.jpg)[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hester Prynne.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Prynne[edit]

Hi, and thanks for contacting me.

I wonder what is wrong with the image you have orphaned now twice. Had your message to me not read, If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful, I would have contacted you beforehand.

You may have realized that I put it in an article on Hester Prynne rather than Demi Moore, although either would have been legitimate: The photo does show Hester Prynne, a fictional character, doesn't it?

What do you want? Have one third of all the images on Wikipedia deleted? Best wishes, <KF> 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KF. Movie screenshots are (some few special cases apart) copyrighted images. The English language Wikipedia allows for the use of unfree images when they are highly necessary to the article, (that is, when the image is essential information) and it's not possible to create a free licensed alternative (and, of course, when we can claim "fair use" for the image use). The image in question, is a movie screenshot showing Demi Moore's face. Arguably, it's always possible to create a free alternative for an unfree image of a living person. Also, I didn't thought the look of Ms. Moore face at the time of the movie production was essential information for the article on the book character. That's why I removed the image from Hester Prynne.

If you take a look at the bold letters in the {{film-screenshot}} template, you will notice that it says that image should only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents", what I also don't think was the case.

"What do you want? Have one third of all the images on Wikipedia deleted?". I want to have all unfree "wrongly-used" images removed. (I understand that "wrongly-used" is to be determined by the comunity, and not by me alone) I don't know which fraction of Wikipedia images this would be. I believe restrictive policies on unfree images use stimulate editors to upload free images (specially in the case of living persons). Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the following images (a random pick, which took me a few minutes only):

Image:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg

Image:Rachel weisz.jpg

Image:Flynn robin hood.jpg

Image:Batemanas.jpg

Image:TwoWomen FF 300x225 071420050956.gif

Image:Rachelward-2.JPG

Image:Bataud1.jpg

Image:AudreyHepburnInSabrina.JPG

Image:Mubarak 1.jpg

Image:Hughgrantmug.jpg

What makes each of these images more legitimate here at Wikipedia than Demi Moore's?

As always, this is not a rhetorical question.

<KF> 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they are legitimate. Note that I understand that Wikipedia as a lot of instances of image uses which goes against it's policy, but a thousand wrongs don't make a right. I'll take a look at these images and how they are used, thanks for the pointers. Best regards, --Abu Badali 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove or tag them. Just answer my question. And ask others for their opinion. I guess Wikipedia would have been sued hundreds of times if the use of all those images out there were so fundamentally wrong.

On a different note, I suppose there's a lot of important work to be done here at Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd at least consider spending my time on a task I could also complete in the foreseeable future.

I'm going to log off now, so I'm not likely to reply to messages until some time tomorrow. Good night, wherever you are. <KF> 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about being sued. It's about building a free encyclopedia. It's about gathering reusable content. For instance, Wikipedia do not accepts images when the copyright holder give us a for-Wikipedia-only permission to use it, although that would be the most lawsuit-safe licencing possible for an image.

About your sidenote, I believe that removing improper content from Wikipedia is just as important as adding good content. Both of these activities are needed if we want, in a "foreseeable future", achieve our goal, that is to build a free encycloedia.

Hope you have a nice sleeping. Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop that crusade of yours. It's bordering on the ridiculous. I've just been reading your current talk page, and you seem to have a long history of antagonising other contributors. Please get your priorities right. You'll hardly get any reward for this activity, whether within this community or outside. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and most of the things to be achieved here can be achieved through teamwork. Let us not work against each other.

As you correctly remark somewhere, you do not have absolute authority over what is going on here. Even the guidelines you so strictly adhere to are—you won't believe it—man-made (i e open to discussion and change) rather than God-given. Willing executioners, unconditionally obedient to a "real," imagined, or usurped authority, have not always played a laudable role in history.

I don't know how old you are or what you do for a living, but you might want to check your actions here against your decisions in real life. Concerning Wikipedia, if you lay off for, say, a couple of weeks, other contributors will fill in for you if the task you're performing right now is really an urgent one. I suppose monitoring the gallery of new files to see if some newbies have uploaded copyrighted images or vanity photos or other contentious or unacceptable material is very necessary, but removing screenshots and magazine and book covers from articles after they have stayed there for months, if not years, should not be our priority.

Also, consider that there is such a thing as compromise. For example, instead of removing an image (usually without discussing it, which makes people put it back again in the first place) we could keep it and add a more detailed fair use rationale. (Some of the images I have listed have one.) Being confrontational and co-operative are not mutually exclusive, are they?

Best wishes, <KF> 11:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring, but "ridiculous" is your POV. I could use this word to describe some of the "fair use rationales" I have ran across during my "crusade", but I wouldn't, out of respect to others. I'm not seeking any reward. Thanks for caring again. I understand how the policies and guidelines here are made, and I assure you that in some few special cases they are "god given". But still, I'm not "unconditionally obedient" to this authority. I just happen to believe in this project's goals and methods, and like to help it. Should the goals and methods change, I would promptly reconsider my participation on it.

I would say that, considering the amount of copyright infringment we have, the image issue in Wikipedia has some urgency. But this is not only about coptright infringment. It's important to keep in mind that we're trying to build a free encyclopedia, and very few unfree image uses would help us in this journey. For instance, if we're going to allow magazine covers and screenshots as the main image of any celebrity article, what reasons would anyone have to try to produce free images of celebrities? These images being in some article for "months, if not years" doesn't make them specially good or helpfull. I see them as the main reason no one cared to produce/upload a free image for that subject "for months, if not years". I think producing free content is our priority.

"...instead of removing an image (...) we could keep it and add a more detailed fair use rationale". A fair use rationale is not just a numbered list of phrases in the image description page. It's a justification for why we should be using an image. In some cases, no number of words would be capable of justifying the image use. There's simply nothing to detail bacause theres no justification (rationale) to use the image.

As a side note, you should please remove that image from your talk page. It's againg Wikipedia's policy and I see and willfully refusal to follow it mutually exclusive to any teamwork on a collaborative effort.

Best regards, --Abu Badali 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image removals[edit]

I haven't had any specific discussions involving Abu's case. It was just a few months back I had some discussion via e-mail with people with similar opinions and that's where I made the case that the actor qualifies as "a content". That said, the image that was removed at Kate Winslet wasn't appropriate as it included subtitles so it was a good call to remove it; I just disagreed with the rationale. Apparently Jimbo Wales (the man who runs Wikipedia, a.k.a. "God") has made the statement that he'd rather see no images used at all on Wikipedia than to run the risk of running any "legally dangerous" images. So in my opinion I think the days are numbered for images of any type on Wikipedia. Sad but probably true. 23skidoo 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]