User talk:Carnildo/Archive3

Free use/public domain images for 20th Century celebrities
Hi Carnildo. A little while ago you objected to my nomination for the Sharon Tate article as a featured article, and I reacted very defensively. Since then I've read a lot of what is on Wikipedia about copyrights, what constitutes fair use etc so I can now understand the aim of what you're saying, and I apologise if my earlier comments came across as rude.

I notice that you've objected to some articles like Henry Fonda on the basis of the images, so do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions because the more I read on the subject the more confused I become. Do you know any likely places that free use or public domain images of celebrities might be found. I have searched everywhere and have found very little. Sites like this one Henry Fonda alleged PD images make me suspicious - I don't believe they necessarily are.

Also in the absence of free use images, are promotional photos, DVD covers, screenshots etc acceptable as "fair use" if correctly tagged and justified? I've read Fair use (Justification for fair use) among other things, so I understand what's required but I haven't been able to find an example of a fair use image that is correctly tagged, and with a rationale included. Can you point me to what you consider to be a good example of such an image that has a complete rationale on the image description page. The templates "this is a screenshot", "this is a DVD cover" etc are obviously too generic on their own, so I'd like to see exactly how it should be done. Also, adding to my confusion just when I think I'm getting a grip on things, you withdrew your objections to the images in Iron Maiden article, and I'm trying to work out the reason, as the images used seem to me to be similar to other images that you've objected to. I'm obviously missing something.

Thanks. I'd like to be sure before I put anything up for nomination in the future, that I've done my best beforehand to get it right. Any advice appreciated. Rossrs 08:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * For very well-known celebrities, the US government archives may have something: a Google image search on "site:.gov" may bring something up. Also, the search engine on the Archives website (http://www.archives.gov/) may find things that Google doesn't.  For people with military service, the military might have something (Google search on "site:.mil").


 * For celebrities that were well-known before 1950, there may be newspaper photographs that have fallen out of copyright. These will be hard to find, but the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/) may have something.


 * A further option is to contact the celebrity's agent or estate and ask for an image to be released under GFDL, Creative Commons attribution, or Creative Commons sharealike-attribution licenses.


 * In my opinion, if free-use images can't be found, the second-best choice is a promotional photo: it's an image that is intended to be distributed widely. Of course, there are exceptions: for albums, singles, and DVDs, a low-resolution scan of the cover is always appropriate.  For movies, a still from a well-known scene or a low-resolution scan of a promotional poster is good.  Failing all else, other fair-use images can be used, but they need to be tagged, justified, have the source/copyright owner credited, and used very sparingly.


 * As for the images at Iron Maiden, I'm still trying to figure out how strict I should be about fair-use images: all the images there are directly related to the subject of the article (except Image:PrisonerNovel.jpg, which I've just removed), all of them have some semblance of a source indicated, all of them have some semblance of a fair-use justification, and none of them seem to be surplus to the needs of the article. I should probably push to have the justifications be made more explicit. --Carnildo 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Image:PrisonerNovel.jpg really had me thinking "what the....?".  So now it's gone, I will scratch my head no more.  Thanks for the info - very helpful and greatly appreciated.  Especially the search suggestions - areas I hadn't tried.  Rossrs 10:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use of images
Given the slightly weary tone of your edit summary when objecting to the Ted Radcliffe FAC on the entirely valid grounds that a fair use rationale was not stated clearly, I suggest that you turn some of your attention to Peer review so that more articles are improved in this way. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting it; I'll add that to my watchlist. It would help if people actually read the FAC requirements before listing -- I've seen articles go by with dubious fair use claims, with clearly incorrect license tags, with no copyright information at all, and even a few outright copyvios. --Carnildo 04:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Peer Review might nip some problems in the bud. I've just listed Peer review/Sunset Boulevard (film)/archive1.  I've been unable to find anything free use, and I've been searching for weeks.  I don't think I'm going to find anything, so I have cut down the number of images that were previously in the article, to include only what I think is truly necessary.  I have also added a rationale to each image description page.  I wonder if you would mind having a look at it/them when you have the time.  I'd value your opinion, particularly with the rationales.  Thanks Rossrs 14:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the points you raised on Peer Review - this is quite an interesting learning exercise. Also, thank you for your generous comments on the Autism FAC which, quite frankly, made my day.  Rossrs 13:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Radcliffe FAC
Thank you for supporting the Ted Radcliffe FAC. I appreciate it all the more for your initial opposition. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the Sequel
The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

image/fairuse for Autism FAC
I have a response there. We can discuss it here if you'd like - I've searched several places and have been unable to find any viable images on the subject that are not copyrighted. -- Ryan Norton  T 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

BRSM FAC
I answered your objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Signpost spam
My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Wikipedia Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:FLC
I've removed all of the images at Featured list candidates as a number of people had the same concern as yourself. Would you reconsider your vote? -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Popups bugs fixed, I think
I think the "preferences don't take effect" bugs are fixed now. I've also included some hacks to work around the chinese characters in opera, by setting simplePopups to true by default in that browser. Thanks for taking the time to report these problems! Lupin 13:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

re:my sig
oh, didn't even notice thanks for telling me, it should be fixed now. Jtkiefer T - 06:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Virii
I hope I didn't step on your toes by changing your redirect. Personally, I entirely agree with you that virii ought to be a redirect to plural of virus, for general purposes, but I figured that throwing a bone to 154.20.32.131 would be the quickest way to bring this particular distraction to an end. The redirect can always be fixed up after the discussion is good and cold. --Eric Forste (Talk) 07:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wario
I've cleared up the problems. The only fair use images remaining there are the intro one and the motorcyclist one. I've replaced the others with screenshots. -- A Link to the Past 14:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use help?
I'm a big fan of the "Carnildo objection" on WP:FAC, and I was hoping you could look and see if I'm in the bounds of fair use. The card game, Magic the Gathering releases a new set of cards a few times a year. (See the "V" in the middle right of this card for an example .) Each card has a symbol on it to indicate which set it is from. We've had a bit of a discussion at the appropriate wikiproject on whether we can include these or not. As a test, I've tagged Image:Visions (Magic- The Gathering) Symbol.gif as best I can. What do you think? Thanks for your help. -- Norvy (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

fair use rationale
Hi, you must be getting tired of having to point out all the images that don't have the fair use rationale. I think the main problem is that most people are simply not aware of this requirment while it is so easy to upload images. Anyway, I have raised the issue over at WikiProject Computer and video games, where we have not been complying with this requirement. Hopefully we'll be able to rectify the current situation. If you want to comment there please provide your feedback. Cheers, Jacoplane 19:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oww, and I'm "stealing" your Antoine de Saint-Exupery quote to put on my userpage too :) Jacoplane 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Nirvana (band)
Carnildo, the cover image for has been rescaled, the clip for  has been cut to less than 30 second and fair use rationales have been added to all media. Could you please strike out (at least the relevant parts) or rephrase your objection?

Thanks!

Cedars 09:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer review/Nashua, New Hampshire/archive2
I thought I had added the GFDL tag for Daniel Webster, I took both Daniel Webster and Boire Field, and the Seal is Government Public Domain. Anything else needed? Karmafist 13:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing image-wise. I'll take a look at the article to see what else might be needed. --Carnildo 19:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello my Washington peer!
A friend of mine, Ryan Norton has told me you would make a good admin. I see that you would, and the fact that you're from Washington bumps you up a notch ;) Anywho, go to RfA and accept or reject your adminship candidacy. Redwolf24 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for photo!
Thanks for finding the Hugo Black photo! Much appreciated!--Bcrowell 16:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways - Image help
I am running into a problem in that I can't find the exact source of the image Image:Clipper ORION III.jpg. At the same time, the person who uploaded it hasn't been contributing since early June, and so far hasn't responded to my inquiries. I was wondering if you know of some means of getting help with this matter? Thanks. Pentawing 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone provided another image, which is of the entire movie poster along with the source. I'll probably use that image to replace what already exists. Pentawing 02:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Education in the United States
Could you please look at the nomination and reevaluate or update your comments? I have tried to fix your original issues, but I would like you to satisified enough to change your vote.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian
What have you against this word, such that you've felt obliged to delete it from at least two pages?


 * List of autological words - Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian has no more of a claim to being a word than "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". Both return three hits in OneLook.  All of the latter give it as "a nonsense word".  Show me a dictionary that states "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian" is a nonsense word.  Moreover, there are probably hundreds of "real" words with even fewer OneLook hits.
 * I'd have real trouble doing so, as it doesn't even make it into any of the dictionaries I've got.
 * Longest word in English - I can't for the life of me see why you think it doesn't belong here. The whole point of that page is to give examples of very long words, whether real or not.  If "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian" doesn't belong here, then neither does "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" or "Lip­smackin­thirst­quenchin­acetastin­motivatin­good­buzzin­cool­talkin­high­walkin­fast­livin­ever­givin­cool­fizzin".
 * The others are nonce words that have become nationally or internationally well-known, while "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian" hasn't. --Carnildo 19:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what is your source of statistics on the relative well-knownness of words? For example, out of the current "Other long words" section, I for one had only heard of "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" and "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" before I discovered this page, and only the first of these from any source other than Wikipedia.  Moreover, "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian" is by far the most topical of all words to any resource or discussion on hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian words.  Is this not sufficient reason to include it? -- Smjg 11:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Pepsi word was used in a national television campaign. "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" was a significant part of a very successful movie.  "Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" is from a well-known children's show.  "Sesquipedalian" is a perfectly good, attested word for describing long words.  There's no need for a little-known joke word. --Carnildo 18:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no need for it not to be there either. Moreover, we can probably attest it by that definition with the aid of Google.  And you still haven't answered the first question in my last comment.  But anyway, since you seem to know about the Pepsi word, why don't you edit the article to indicate which nation it was used in? -- Smjg 19:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Further to the well-knownness question, why do people come to Wikipedia? To find out what they already know, or to find out something new? -- Smjg 13:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace merging and splitting
I thought you might be interested in a change to the page on Current surveys. Maurreen (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Witold Lutosławski images
Hello, Carnildo. I have nominated the Lutosławski article for peer review. I would welcome some advice, please. Like you, I do not want Wikipedia to infringe copyright. What evidence would you like to see to clear up the copyright status of these images? The uploader Karol Langner has, I am sure, contacted the relevant people but is currently on Wikivacation, and I am reluctant to inconvenience these people again - in any case I would want to check with Karol first. Is there something you think she has omitted to do?

On a different note, could I ask you to kindly consider an edit summary other than the discouraging "Object, usual reasons" on FACs? Something like "Object, image copyright" would be more considerate to new FAC nominators (like me) who do not know what your usual reasons are. It made me feel briefly that I might have made some glaring error of protocol. Regards. --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If Karol has permission, then all they need to do is paste copies of the emails involved into the image description pages.


 * As for the edit summary, I've objected to about half of all FACs on the grounds of improper image copyright information. It's almost as if featured article criteria #5 were invisible.  That said, I'll change the edit summary I use from now on. --Carnildo 17:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada (Featured Article nomination)
The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg & Image:HM-tablet.jpg have been tagged as {CanadaCopyright} and {promophoto} respectivley. For the third image Image:Queencanada.jpg I'm am requesting information from the person who uploaded it. If no information is found on this image, it could just be removed from the article. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia (ballet) featured article nomination
I politely ask that you reconsider your position regarding the featured article candidacy of Sylvia (ballet). Your objections to the article's promotion seem to concern two groups of images. The first, Image:Sylmurbel.jpg and the like, you noted as being used only with permission, whereas they were actually tagged as being presumed fair use and therefore acceptable on Wikipedia. The second standing objection regards the image of the sheet music which you noted might be found in a better form with a free license (or in the public domain). I investigated this proposal and reached the conclusion that a superior image is not readily available (see candidacy page for alternative courses of action). Thus it seems that your objection is no longer necessary. If you have any other suggestions to make, please do so, otherwise, kindly remove your objection. -- Rmrfstar 03:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the Image:Sylmurbel.jpg group are of far too high a quality for fair use. This won't affect Wikipedia, but will affect anyone re-using Wikipedia content (say, answers.com). --Carnildo 06:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
This is for keeping me and others in check at WP:FAC over image copyrights. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop Hey there. Congratulations, you've just been made a sysop! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except junk like "aojt9085yu8;3ou BOB IS GAY"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 02:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Jackson 5
I have satisfied all of your objections. The images in question have been given rationle for their use in the article (including Image:Jackson5-concert) on their image description pages, and the resolutions of said images have been lowered correctly. --FuriousFreddy 07:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Columbine High School massacre
The picture rationals in this article are possible the only thing holding it back. I have tried to put the correct ones in, and have asked for help from other users, but I still can't seem to do it correctly. I see that you are an administrator and want to ask if you can please help me fix them, or tell me exactly what I should add to/change about them? I can give you any information about where I found them. Also, what would you suggest as a good lead picture? I'd appreciate any help. PRueda29 - 19:40 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find source information for the image Evacuating Columbine. This image can be found in Columbine websites all over the internet, without any copyright sources sited which leads me to believe it is in the public domain. Though, I'm not sure. It's probably impossible to find the original copyright holder since it has been repoduced so often. What should I do in this case? Also, I have removed the image Columbine1 since I had originally taken it as a lead image, but you're right it isn't a good one so it's useless now. It needs to be deleted. PRueda29 - 20:43 22 August 2005 (UTC)

For the image ColumbineLibrary is there any way to keep it without having to have someone recreate it? It would be difficult for me to recreate and I don't know of anyone who could.

For the image Columbine_Breaking_News_Photography I think I have found the correct rational for this picture, but I'm not sure, probably not. Check it for me, please. I appreciate your help!! PRueda29 - 21:01 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright response - it depends...
If the image was posted in a GFDL blog by its original creator, then he has (perhaps unwittingly) released it thereunder. Of course, the GFDL has yet to be tested, so that is not a certain claim, but will get you off with a warning if you're wrong. If it was posted by another person, then the creator still has his full copyright claim to it, and its use here must be fair use (so long as the article uses no more of the image than is necessary to illustrate its educational point). Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 05:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina
Hello. History of South Carolina is on Featured Article Candidates for a third time due to recent controversy. Because you commented on one of its past nominations, you may be interested in commenting this time at Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina. Toothpaste 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Genseiryu ARticle Blocked
Dear Carnildo, Thanks for interfering. A third neutral party who was watching this article and already protected this few weeks ago. Somebody decided to unprotect it.He was at the moment doing his best to revert every time the real vandalist to get some discussion on the talk page. You just interfered with his attempts and you decided that the best article to keep is the one made by the one who is always vandalizing. Maybe you better blocked the article after a revert of JeremyA. He was doing the reverts because the vandalist didn't, as requested by administrators, give reasons for reverts or changes in the article. Now it pays off to vandalize. They have their story protected. Please check if this is really the best and most neutral action. Besides that look at the insults on the edit summaries against administrator JeremyA and others. Best regards, --TenChiJin 21:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there, Carnildo. This article is also on my watchlist, as I've intervened (unsuccessfully) there too. I was wondering where the request for unprotection came from? Unsurprinsgly, there's already a revert with an abusive edit summary &mdash; it's very tiresome. -Splash 00:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was an email request from JeremyA. --Carnildo 06:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Tonya Harding article
Hi Canildo. A few days ago you answered my question about the porn reference in Tonya Harding and deleted the porn description. People keep reverting it back. I'm pretty new to Wiki and I'm not sure what to do about this. I'm pretty damned sure an oral sex link does not belong in the article, but there seems to be nothing I can do but keep deleting it. Any help or ideas would be appreciated. --Fang Aili 16:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible texts
Please stop removing the source texts. The poll you have cited was started and conducted by a now banned troll, and it violated almost all of the survey guidelines. Keeping short primary sources is standard practice on Wikipedia, as noted at the exceptions at Don't include copies of primary sources and including very similar texts is explicitly mandated at Lyrics and poetry. - SimonP 18:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please tell me what poll I cited? As far as I'm aware, the only poll, policy, or other document I referred to was an implicit Don't include copies of primary sources. --Carnildo 18:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In this edit last month you referenced Bible source text, and I thought you were again enforcing that poll of -Ril-'s. I apologize if I was mistaken. I think you are misunderstanding Don't include copies of primary sources. When that poll was held Wikisource did not exist and Wikipedia was home to items like the full texts of Beowulf and Macbeth. That poll resulted in Wikisource being established, and such sources being removed. Quotes of text within articles was not what was being discussed, and many made that quite clear in their votes. - SimonP 21:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay
Sorry it's taken so long, I wanted to find a new picture, but I figured I should just borrow a barn before I forget. My tradition is to award everybody I vote adminship to an entire barn, since due to their new struggles they'll have to deal with all us lowly users, they deserve something much bigger than a barnstar. So, please enjoy your new barn! Karmafist 00:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Free images
I know you take a lot of abuse from people that don't like it when you point out the problems with their non-free images, but please keep it up. We are a free encyclopedia and we need to stay that way. As you are well aware, people that complain simply don't understand the issue, and it is simply more convenient to use whatever image they find. Anyway, keep up the good work, and especially in finding free images to use. - Taxman Talk 21:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded, one of the less-fun but more-important parts of keeping this place running. --fvw *  22:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Genseiryu
Hi! Just a note to let you know that I gave up and re-protected the Genseiryu and WGKF articles&mdash;the 13 consecutive edits with abusive summaries today was the last straw for me. Splash is in the process of preparing an RfC concerning this. JeremyA (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that a request for comment has now been submitted. JeremyA (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Image question
Hi Carnildo! I've noticed you are knowledgeable about image licensing issues (and from your talk page I seem not to be the first one to have noticed!) Can I have your opinion please, on  ? The source states clearly that it is available for educational, non-commercial use; what do you think is the right license tag? Thanks much, Antandrus (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly? ifd or delete.  Images with licenses that prohibit commercial use are no longer allowed on Wikipedia (see Jimbo's email of May 19 ), and it's probably not possible to claim fair use, since it should be possible for a Wikipedian to create a replacement photograph. --Carnildo 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that's what I wanted to know. I deleted it. Antandrus  (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC
If you want all RFC listings on a single page, you can still use Requests for comment/All. It may need some work on the layout or the template though, feel free to improve that if you want. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * The "/All" page is absolutely worthless for me. As I said, I read the page using diffs.  Transclusion doesn't generate diffs. --Carnildo 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Images on Krag-Petersson
Hi.

A while back you was very helpfull in pointing out some problems with the images in the article on the Jarmann M1884, which was then on FAC. I've nominated another rifle-related article today, the Krag-Petersson (see here), and wondered if you could take the time to look over the images and see if they are good or if I need to replace them / change the copyright notice / do something else to them to make sure they are acceptable for a featured article. As it stands, the article now contains three fair use images as well as three public domain images. Any further comments you might have is also welcome off course.

Thank you for your time, WegianWarrior 13:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC page
Thanks for your comments. Maurreen (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use vs public domain
Hi! I want to scan a picture of a former Indian sports star. Our newspaper has published a photo of him, but the photo is pre-1945, which means copyrights to the original photo have expired. So if I scan the image from the newspaper is it PD or faiuse? Thanks. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, just someone who is interested in copyright law. That said, if the copyright has expired, and your scan is as accurate as possible, and you don't pick up any of the surrounding newspaper text, and India law is similar to that of the US, then the image is in the public domain. --Carnildo 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fighting Link Spam
Mark, I see your edits often in the technology pages. Thank you for helping to combat link spam. Jehochman 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use Images
Since I know you like to comment on these images a lot at WP:FAC, I wish for you to see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! --Carnildo 06:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I, too, would appreciate your comments. In particular, I see that you are on something of a campaign to reform the use of Fair Use, and I support you in that.  What policy changes would be helpful?--Jimbo Wales 11:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW Thanks for commenting on peer review also - and please don't take the harsh criticism the wrong way... people just arn't use to it [[File:Shade.png]] Ryan Norton T 06:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Lutosławski revisited
Hi, Carnildo. Karol Langner has returned from vacation, and pasted the relevant bits of email onto Image:Lutoslawski.jpg. Is this sufficient for you to withdraw your objection to Featured article candidates/Witold Lutosławski, or does more need to be done? --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

original research
I see you often apply the phrase original research to my contibutions. I would urge you to compare them to the references abundantly cited on the talk pages and explain to me if you could where you think the original research comes in. Rktect 17:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Review MOND
I've addressed your concerns about the Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics article obtaining featured article status. Please review and (hopefully) change your vote to support. Thank you. Loom91 08:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

FA Withdrawl
I was blanking the Hopkins page because I returned to peer review to touch it up. I withdrew it (as I said) from FA running, why do you keep returning it? Staxringold 00:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I keep restoring it because the page needs to be kept as a record of the FAC nomination. --Carnildo 03:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then how do I withdraw? Staxringold 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally you just wait for Raul to do it when he filters out the FACs. You can do it yourself by just removing the line from FAC and noting on the talk page of the article that it was a failed nomination. Ryan Norton T 04:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Temperance and Threats.
Hi.

I think Xiong could not possibly be more wrong in some of the things he has said on the Village Pump page. Nonetheless, this comment that you made is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Your admin tools are a mop, to be used to clean up Wikipedia for the good of the community, not a club to be brandished in the direction of people with whom you disagree. I think you should revert that comment.

Regards, Nandesuka 13:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair-Use
Since you're the "lord of the copyright", see if there is anything wrong with the James Bond article.

igordebraga ≠ 23:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Belarus
I removed the third photo you pointed out. The second photo of the dresses, I reverted to a fair use image from the Belarusian Embassy. Since I clearly know who took the photo and the copyright of it, I decided to use that one instead. As for the first photo, I added the copyright of the website that hosted the image. Since I have no clue who took it, or when it was took it, and I got no response from the owners of the website, the information will be incomplete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the final photo you had doubts over. Other than grammar issues, does the article look good? Zach (Sound Off) 02:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Hopkins School
Updated copyright info to make more sense. Sorry about that.. :D I got used to form copyrights, and the rights as I listed them weren't quite right (I fixed them up with proper liscenses) Staxringold 01:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

LeonardoRob0t
Just to note, User:LeonardoRob0t (talk • contribs), is running without approval... --AllyUnion (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is not toilet paper, either."
Quite possibly the best vfd quote ever :) --Kennyisinvisible 18:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed :-) Nandesuka 19:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader
Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Northwest Territories general elections
Can you please respond, to the the feature article discussion, I have attempted to meet your objection, but further input is needed, thank you --Cloveious 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made some free maps as requested, please take another look at the article. --Cloveious 02:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The new maps do a much better job of showing how the border has changed over the years than the old maps did. --Carnildo 05:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I have resubmitted the List for FLC after some more tweaks and polishing I hope you will consider supporting it this time around. --Cloveious 05:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

re One small question:
Re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts&diff=23262325&oldid=23262212


 * 1) Oppose. Seems to be a one-issue editor who has serious problems understanding our policies. Try again in a year or so, once you've got some experience here. --Carnildo 03:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit I don't know everything about all policies, Carnildo, but according to the current policy that should not be a requirement of adminship; According to Jimbo Wales, it should be "no big deal" if the user is in good standing: Look at my "block log" -it is a perfect and clean record: So, I am saying that your vote here, while your right to vote as you see fit, shows that you do not have a clear understanding of the RfA policy, as I stated above. Since I raise a good point, I am feel the need to ask you one small question, and please don't deny me this: Did you actually read this entire page here, with the votes, answers, and replies? Thx, Carnildo: I await your answer at your leisure.--GordonWatts 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWatts 04:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

copyright and sound excerpts
Hi Carnildo

I see that you have knowledge of copyright, at least as far as images go. I wonder whether you'd mind having a look at the discussion page for contributors to composer articles, for which the use of sound excerpts is quite an issue. It would be nice to confirm that the current guidelines, which I have compiled, are appropriate.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers

Tony 12:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Capybaracruft
Good call. –Hajor 21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Images for deletion
Hi Carnildo,

I'm not sure what the procedure is, or what to do. User:Noitall has listed a number of images for deletion today including (only) one of the three screenshots for Sunset Boulevard (film) (Image:SunsetBoulevardWilliamHolden.jpg) as well as two of the several promo photos from Iron Maiden. Appears to be random because there are other images in the same articles that could be nominated with the same justification. I have responded to the nominations and left a message on his talk page but I've also noticed Noitall is conversing on Jimbo Wales's talk page where he seems to be saying we're going too far in deleting images that don't need to be deleted. The two opposing viewpoints being expressed by the same user have me perplexed.

Would you mind having a look, and commenting if it gets to that point? thanks Rossrs 11:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually on second thought, I don't think this is a big deal. I'll keep an eye on it myself, but shouldn't be a problem.  Rossrs 09:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you made a comment on the images for deletion page. Thank you.  I feel that the nominator is trying to make a point.  I appreciate that you commented after all.  cheers Rossrs 15:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion
Listed under Images and media for deletion/2005 September 17. Thunderbrand 23:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

more on fair use of sound excerpts
Thanks, Carnildo; I've added your advice about 10% and not more than one excerpt per track on the whole of Wikipedia. In addition, I've added a final sentence to the paste-in text for info boxes, as a further safety measure:

'We believe that our use of the excerpt is in good faith, and that its inclusion enhances rather than reduces the commercial value of the recording from which it was drawn; however, if the owner of the copyright wishes to challenge our use, we will be happy to remove it promptly, with apology.'

Tony 03:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Those "we"s should be changed to "I"s, since it's the uploader and the person who is writing the fair use rationale who are asserting fair use. --Carnildo 04:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx; I've singularised all of the first-person pronouns. Tony 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

(Removed my subsequent comment—no longer applicable) Tony 06:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude. Enough.
Carnildo, I saw your post on the RfA page, where you say:

'''" Try again in a year or so, once you've got some experience here. Don't bother re-applying -- I don't believe you'll ever be suited for an adminship." '''

Dude.

Even assuming I'm not qualified (and I may not be), you don't have to make a big deal about it with me: I've done over and above to work with you on fair use issues probably doing more than any person in recent time:
 * I personally obtained photos, by taking them myself
 * Took a few photos depicting me in them to prove they were mine, and not off in Internet
 * Released them under GNU, and
 * Posted them to the appropriate site, where they are still posted, last I hear lol.

Even if you are right and I'm not qualified to be an admin, you need to do less criticizing and more changing of the policy, which are quite lenient, and then if you vote people down in the future, it won't generate a lot of ill will like RfA's currently do -you can point to policy.


 * "Seems to be a one-issue editor" That's not a violation of Policy or a requirement of an Admin. Again, if you don't like the current policy, show some gumption and initiative -and change it! Don't gripe. Even if you are in the majority, the majority is not always right. (Think of the Titanic, for example: Were those ship builders in the "right" for placing too few lifeboats on that "unsinkable craft," lol?)
 * "who has serious problems understanding our policies." Unless you show me examples, please abstain from making accusations: You would not want to be treated in this way, and trust me, Carnildo, there is a God would does protect you from these problems, --and He expects you to protect other people -but you go on ahead and do what you want and argue with God how you see fit: You're going to do what you want anyhow.

PS: This is what I mean, when I say that Admins are held to a "double standard" and can do things without criticism that would normally fry or sink an RfA candidate:

User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA

No, I'm not perfect, and not as qualified, knowledgeable, or available with free time as some, but that does not mean I'm an evil person who's never right on an issue where we disagre.--GordonWatts 11:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Apology if I offended you; I am taking a Wiki-Break I am taking a "wiki-break" because I am over-worked and have other (real life) responsibilities. Before I go, I wanted to apologize if I had offended you -and, while I don't see eye-to-eye on all your viewpoints, assure you I'm not mad at you. Take care,- -GordonWatts 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 66
I have corrected the copyright issue on the picture. I took the picture myself and did not know it needed a template for it. A map will be provided in the next few days, courtesy of User:SPUI. I'm currently working on other comments provided by others. Thanks for the comments. Rt66lt 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Popular culture studies and fair use
Hi Carnildo! Thanks for your comments on the FAC nomination for popular culture studies. Perhaps the fair use rationales I had created weren't clear enough. I've written them up again with more detailed explanations and also added references to how they are discussed in the article at the nomination. I also intend to add a section to the introduction relating to a breakdown in the barrier between high and low culture, which I believe will make these images even more relevant. I would be grateful if you could reconsider your objection. Cheers! TreveXtalk 14:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Vote on Davien Crow

 * You said they are not notable. Please review the rebuttle I posted, the fact that everyone from Marilyn Manson to Suicide Girls and large internet sites like Roc Detector and Megametalonline and more importantly SMNnews should be proof enough are involved with Davien Crow and his band Sin Star should be enough ... But I have covered most of this already. I am asking you kindly to please review the facts and consider changing your vote to keep the article.


 * Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Importance, Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that), Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. (please reference the large rebuttle on the discussion page itself)

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now.

PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 05:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there!
Nice to meet you, Carnildo! I've got a small request for you, if you have the time. I've been trying to improve the Texas Ranger Division article as close as FA status as possible, and qith the invaluable help of Tony1 and Katefan0, it's slowly getting there. However, one issue that somewhat worries me is the condition of the pictures at said article. I've made an analysis of their tagging and copyright status at the article's Talk Page; and since this matter is one of your expertise, could I ask you to have a look at it and see if all pictures are properly tagged, and if their copyright qualifies properly. You'd be doing me a BIG favor. Thanks in advance, Shauri Yes babe?  23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Images on Denis Law
Hi,

I've decided to put Denis Law back on FAC (you opposed it first time round) and thought it would be best to deal with your complaints before putting back on (link to its FAC sub page).

I've created a fair use rationale for the image Denis Law signs for Manchester United.JPG based loosely on those on Sunset Boulevard. I think it's got everything it needs, but it'd help if you could let me know whether I've missed anything out. If this one's ok with you, I'll make the same change to the other image in the article and put it back on FAC.

Thanks, CTOAGN 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. --Carnildo 05:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Nepal image
Hi Mark—So the image should go, or can the use be justified?

I wish for a nice, clear tutorial on image copyright, with a trouble-shooting section, a how-to section, and a checklist for contributors. I guess there isn't one, is there?

'Time-space' and 'time-memory': should be n dashes, because there's a vector involved?

Thx Tony 01:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The image should probably go. The image isn't particularly well-known, and it doesn't qualify for any of the specialized "fair use" tags such as bookcover, so any claim of "fair use" is borderline.


 * Except for situations that are explicitly written into law (what is and is not copyrighted, when copyrights expire, and similar things), copyright law is rather messy. "Fair use" is mostly a matter of precedents set by courts, so the only way to tell for sure that something is or is not "fair use" is to run it through the courts, which means getting sued by the copyright holder.  The best we can do at Wikipedia is to maximize the odds in our favor. --Carnildo 06:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx Mark, will suggest to Nichalp that it go. Yeah, messy, so I guess if there were a more specific (educational) relationship between image and text in this case, it might be OK. Tony 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Major offenses
You don't consider "I will find you anywhere you hide yourself in this world, BELIEVE ME" a major offense? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. It's only a single edit -- no evidence that they're going to keep this up. --Carnildo 06:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So how many death threats does one individual get to make before they are taken seriously? Where does the death threat policy spell out that they are allowed to keep making them?  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say a minimum of two: one to get them warned that we don't do things that way here, and one after the warning. --Carnildo 04:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Award


-- R e  dwolf24  (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Nepal image
The Panos site has opted out. I will be changing it to "Fair Use" Rationale: Free use images of rebel organisations are not available. Is this acceptable? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  09:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's borderline, since the article doesn't discuss the picture, but rather discusses the subject of the picture. --Carnildo 19:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Er.. whats the difference? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists of songs
I am writing because you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. I have made a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs and would welcome your comments. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

JetBlue Image
Hello, I appreciate your posting concerning the fair use state of the JetBlue nose gear image. I disagree with your interpretation and I invite you to continue the dialog at the Image Discussion page. Johntex\talk 21:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Crazy in Love
Carnildo, at the FAC of Crazy in Love at, you opposed because of too many samples. I have removed all of them except for 1 30 second sample. OmegaWikipedia 20:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sup! Thanks :"D
Wanted to thank you for the support on my RfA. Hope I can get going soon. Later! - RoyBoy 800 22:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail
Mark, I just sent you an e-mail via Wikipedia, but two other editors in the last day or so haven't received e-mails from me sent that way, so it may not be working at the moment. Please let me know if you don't receive it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing yet, but I don't know how fast Gmail is at processing things. --Carnildo 07:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not gmail; I think it's the Wikipedia e-mail system. Would you mind sending me your e-mail address so I can re-send? It's slimvirgin at gmail.com. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Template: NJGov...
...got consensus to delete at TfD, and I've removed the debate to the relevant log and the template to the "to be orphaned" section of TfD. However, I'm not good at choosing the right image tag to replace its current usages; I wondered if, as the nominator, you'd fancy doing it... -Splash talk 03:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the images either need to be deleted, or need to be tagged as "fair use", and I'm not about to claim "fair use" on an image I haven't uploaded. I've contacted the uploader. --Carnildo 20:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Removal from the Order of Canada
I removed the photos that you had questions over. Zach (Sound Off) 13:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Protecting the Battle of Wolodarka
Thanks for protecting the battle of Wolodarka. I felt like asking for protection myself fol a long time. I don't mind any of the random version you revert it before protection as long as this version included "disputed". All I want is to have other editors look at it to resolve the dispute since Halibutt and myself can't agree. I never demanded that my version shouldremain instead of his but what ticked me off is persistent removal of the "disputed" note while the dispute at talk was clearly unresolved. It is kind of useless for me and Halibutt to continue this discussion with each other until others read what's already said and try to make sense of it. Regards, --Irpen 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the dispute ended the very moment Irpen stated that he withdraws from further dispute and he was apparently the only person to dispute the outcome of the battle. Currently, since there is no dispute and Irpen is not willing to participate, the page should be blocked indefinitely - or the tag removed. Otherwise we'd have a dispute notification and lack of dispute at the talk page, outside of the archived talk between me and Irpen and the sources I provided and he did not. Halibutt 01:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it's just that other editors have to look at the discussion and see whether Halibutt's outcome is supported by his sources or it is only his own interpretation of what the sources say, as I claim. I repeated that I don't know how many times. Since Halibutt rejected three compromise versions suggested by other editors based on the discussion, we will have to wait until someone comes up with a proposal he accepts or several others agree with him that my obections are baseless. Until then, the "disputed" should stay. That's all I am saying. I have no desire to remove the "disputed" note and if Halibutt can agree to stop removing it, please unprotect the article. The dispute is important but should not warrant the protection. The persistent removal of "disputed" is what warrants it. --02:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to join the voting we started there - or to provide sources if you have some more. Halibutt 15:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ashwood University
I have rewritten the entry into a non-advertisement. (I won't say it's neutral.) As you voted to delete it you might wish to take a second look at the article as it is now. Pilatus 02:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

English unit
I wanted to thank you for fixing English unit. Rktect is a controversial user who has targeted many measurement related entries in the past, there's currently a request for arbitration concerning him. As he seems to have put his eye now on English unit, I wanted to comment you and ask you to read about it so you canget informed about the issue and make your own opinion. -- ( &#x263A; drini &#x266B; | &#x260E; ) 01:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks For No Good Reason
Regarding the RfA, that is. Redwolf kinda set himself up for that one, eh? Do you think I have a shot at breaking Func's record? Karmafist 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

New Jersey Senate & Medal of Honor
Please note that all the pictures have been changed to the right tags. Also please take a look at this page, a website decided to getting Major Dick Winters the CMOH. Major Richard D. Winters CMOH Website

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program
Hi — thanks for contributing to U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program recently (I think it was still Cetacean Intelligence Mission then). Just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated the article for FA status. Cheers — Johantheghost 16:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

FAC: Brain
Your object to brain on the grounds of a non-free image has been cleared up by the removal of this image. I have gone through the rest of the images in this article and confirmed that they are all free. I hope the article meets your FA criteria now - if not, please provide more constructive criticism. :) --Oldak Quill 08:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sarkozy raffarin police2.jpg
This image is not a copyright violation: it is free to use provided that one credits the photographer and the photographic services of the Prime Minister's offices. David.Monniaux 07:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the images on that site fall into three groups: images by the Prime Minister's photo service, which have "(C) Service photos du Premier ministre" below them and are under some variation of free license; images by another ministry's photo service, which have that ministry's copyright notice below them, and are under some variation of free license; and photos by French news agencies, which have that agency's copyright notice below them, and are under simple copyright. The image in question appears to fall into the third group. --Carnildo 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am a native French speaker. :-) Maybe I should point out to you that the Hôtel Matignon is the name of the building where the offices of the Prime Minister are located and that, thus, in common everyday journalistic speech, "Matignon" is synonymous with "the Prime Minister's office". David.Monniaux 08:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if the image description page mentioned that. For those of us who are not natives of France, "Matignon" as shorthand for "the French Prime Minister" is about as opaque as "No. 10" being used to mean "the office of the British Prime Minister".  Every country has its journalistic shorthands for various government offices, and with a very few exceptions, those are unknown outside the country in question. --Carnildo 18:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * True. But in such cases, I think that, instead of slapping "copyvio" tags everywhere, you should rather ask people who actually know a bit more than you. :-) May I request that you remove your photographic objections from FAC? Thanks.
 * Beyond the individual case of this article, I'm a bit nervous about hasty "copyvio" claims because I think that we may end up deleting quite a bit of perfectly legitimate images by jumping to conclusions. David.Monniaux 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Eigenvalue
The images used at Eigenvalues have been better commented. Please have a look and give your opinion in the FAC article. Vb 11:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Newton
I've replaced the offending pic. Please review your comment at Featured article candidates/Isaac Newton/archive1. Thank you! Borisblue 23:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)



tele.dk range blocks
I had a look at the block log and saw that you blocked two tele.dk IP ranges for 24 hours. That is good, but it doesn't seem to be helping enough. New vandalbot accounts are still being registered at least one per minute, if not faster. Perhaps we should block the entire tele.dk network temporarily and see if that fixes the problem for now? &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems to have worked. Even if you've been IP blocked, you can still register new accounts, you just can't do anything with them.  But WP:RFC's been unprotected for 11 hours now, and hasn't been vandalized in that time period. --Carnildo 18:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/Nicolas_Sarkozy
Hi Carnildo, Would you be so kind as to remove your "oppose" claim, since it was based on two issues that actually do not apply to the article as it is now? 1) The image from the PM site was not a copyvio. 2) The other image was sourced (albeit somewhat discreetly - it was in the history comments) and I was able to find a page saying it came from the European Commission. Since this image may be dodgy, I replaced it with an official image from Sarkozy's party. David.Monniaux 07:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Sorry if I came across a bit abrasive, but I'm trying to get a number of articles on France featured in order to fight the "structural bias" on Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Date for work to be released into public domain
Hi Carnildo, Since you seem to be the resident expert on copyright law, could you do me a favor? I'd like to use this photo in the article about Cleveland. It was taken in 1927, so has the copyright run out on it? I seem to remember somewhere that there's a limitation of 70 years for anything published before the late '60s (?), but I'm not sure. If it isn't public domain, I just won't use it; I don't really feel like jumping through all the hoops necessary to fair-use it. Thanks! Pack n Canes |   say something!   17:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly an expert on copyright law -- it's an extremely complex subject even for someone with a law degree. For this particular image, I can't tell for sure if it's public domain or not.  Everything published before 1923 is public domain, while those published between 1923 and 1963 without the copyright being renewed are public domain.  Two ways to find out for sure would be to check the Library of Congress, or to contact the site owners.  For a basic overview of what is and is not public domain, Cornell's got a chart at.


 * That said, the Library of Congress has a compilation of 161 public-domain photographs of the building compiled by the National Park Service, at [ http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.oh1517]. You can probably find something suitable there. --Carnildo 19:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You may not be an expert, but you're the closest thing I can find. :) I actually found that picture of Euclid Avenue that I knew was definitely public domain, so I went ahead and used that.  My next project (after I catch up on sleep from this one) may be the Terminal Tower article, and if I do I'll definitely use that link.  Many thanks for your help!  Pack n Canes  |   say something!   04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 FAC
I was wondering if you would reconsider your oppose vote at Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/archive2. As already said, the screenshots are mentioned in the article. Thunderbrand 03:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Template Deletion
Not a problem with me as long as the average user can avoid an rv double take like I almost did today on Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga regarding the mantra called "Wikipedia". Carnildo, i'm only a so-so HTML editor, so I assume you're talking about a tage seen only in the editing page or something like that, which should be fine as long as it isn't inadvertently deleted during re-edits. Also, please avoid low level WP:CIVIL violations such as in the history of Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga. Trust me, i've been down that road, and although you mean well, that tone will cause anger in alot of people which will just add to the exacerbation of pointless shouting matches over wording. Karmafist 07:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Wikimarkup has anything specific. I just use &lt;!-- Your comment here --&gt; - style tags, usually a message such as "Yes, this spell really *is* called 'Wikipedia'" --Carnildo 07:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism
I appreciate your highly developed sense of humor, but do you think your edit will last long? --Viriditas | Talk 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea. --Carnildo 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course
Of course I am an alternate account...I say as much on my user page. I created this so as to not let my revalations about certain groups on Wikipedia interfere with my article work. Look, you know me, we're on friendly terms, we've talked before. I am not a "troll." I know trolls, but I'm not one. I'm trying to help the project by tipping you off on what I know. Wikiphilosopher 20:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cubit
You asked: "What does that image have to do with anything?"

The image is the schema of the attested set square used by Egyptian geometers. They couldn't calculate the radix of two but they needed the value of the hypotenuse. So they took 20 digits of the Nippur cubit (about 518 mm) shared into 28 equal parts, that's about 20 x 18.5 = 370 mm. The length of the sides of this square set are called "Remen". The hypotenuse of this square set give the Old Royal Cubit with about 523.5 mm, mentioned in the article. The digit of the sides is identical to the later called Roman digit.

20 radix 2 is 28.28... So, they found a very good approximation for land survey after floods of the Nil river. That's the reason why Egyptian cubits are shared into 7 palms. But it is also clear: they knew that the two digit are not identical; but 1% satisfactory in praxis. --Paul Martin 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then that needs to be made clear in the article or the picture's caption. --Carnildo 06:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque
Hi, the last image you objected to has now been sourced etc. Perhaps you'd like another look. Thanks Giano | talk 08:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:CanadaCopyright
I've restored the image you removed. The use of Logos, seals, and emblems in wikipedia are widely recognized as falling under fair use provisions. Fawcett5 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. The use of limited numbers of the above in articles on the logo etc. or on the owner of the logo for purposes of commentary are widely recognized as falling under fair use provisions.  Using a restricted-use image for decorative effect does not fall under fair use. --Carnildo 22:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Template Fair Use image cleanup
I was put off by seeing the four-hundred hits. Good on you for tackling it. Jkelly 03:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The 400 Google hits is pretty misleading. A large percentage of those were image copyright tags, and many of the rest could be evaluated from the Google search summary.  I don't think I had to look at more than a hundred templates or so. --Carnildo 04:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Human
Please have a look, I believe all of your objections at Featured article candidates/Human have been addressed. Sam Spade 14:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Cool (song)
I noticed that you voted object on the featured article nomination for Cool (song) a few days ago. The article has gone through a number of substantial edits since then, and it would be appreciated if you were to read the article again to see if you would consider changing your vote, or offer further advice on how the article could be improved further. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

PolandGov
What's your thought on this licence for images? Under what conditions, if any, can we use images tagged with it on Wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty straighforward "no". The license has two restrictions that are incompatible with Wikipedia's goals: "no commercial use" and "use must be in accordance with the main aims of the Polish foreign policy".  Any images under this license are usable only if they qualify for "fair use" under US copyright law. --Carnildo 18:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"unverifiable/inherently POV" ?
I think if all the parties show good will then no topic is inherently POV. Like I said, some current topics require more effort. I have committed to make that effort. You can try me, just be specific about what you regard as POV.

As for unverifiable. Verifying the location of people kept in covert detention is tricky. Reporting what reputable sources say about their detention is a lot easier. Human Rights Watch lists another 8 detainees. There are footnotes. It is possible that the Human Rights Watch, and the other sources that tried to track the covert detainees, reached the wrong conclusions, or were duped. I found a source that says one of the eleven was recently killed while he was trying to be captured... Anyhow, it is highly verifiable that the claims were made.

Anyhow, let me repeat my willingness to learn your concerns in more detail, and try to take a crack at answering them. -- Geo Swan 03:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

SB Farc
Ahoy! Please meet me here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, sorry that this note appeared, like, ten times; the wiki was giving me weird error messages, so I was re-submitting. Apologies.


 * Ahoy. Thanks for leaving the FARC off for now.  I cannot say for sure what Raul will do, but past experience indicates he will re-FAC the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tag thanks
Thanks for removing the tag CopyrightByWikimedia from the popup menu on the Upload page. I had requested its removal on the technical Village Pump. Tempshill 06:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Doctorwho-stub
Hi. Please see Template talk:Doctorwho-stub. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian PM photos
Please do NOT remove Australian photos without consulting Australian Wikipedians. We have gone through a long process to get a formula for these photos which clears them for use and which has been approved by Mr Wales. I suggest you visit Australian Wikipedians' notice board and raise any concerns you have before taking action which will make a lot of people angry. Adam 08:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam, your unilateral action is making a lot of people very angry. PMA 10:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at his "contributions" (Special:Contributions/Carnildo) you'll see he's been doing this to a lot of templates lately where it's quite clear (IMO) fair-use allows the images to be used. And yes, it's very unilateral: as far as I can tell he's acting nearly independently, and reverts edits back without any (or very little) discussion or consensus (see: Template:Donkey Kong series). -Locke Cole 11:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at Fair use, you'll see that the use of non-free images in templates is not allowed. --Carnildo 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:FU is supposedly a guideline only, not policy. Besides, I think the argument of including images in certain templates is compelling enough to reconsider this guideline's language. -Locke Cole 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer at the top is there for legal reasons. If Wikipedia established an official policy on what is and is not "fair use", the Wikimedia Foundation could be held liable for any copyright infringement that does occur. --Carnildo 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bounty for articles with free images
Hi, my article on Felice Beato recently gained Featured Article status. Does it still qualify for the bounty you offered? Pinkville 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. At the end of the bounty offer I've got a list of articles that have qualified so far, and it's on there. --Carnildo 23:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. I wasn't certain of the significance of that list... Thanks. Pinkville 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Atlanta International School
May I ask why you performed this deletion? Thanks! --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a copyvio, and had been listed as such for just under two months. The rather vague talk-page statement had been unverified for over a month.  --Carnildo 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the process is that if someone claims permission the page isn't deleted unless its AfDed, permission is denied, or permission is solicited and not received in 7 days. There wasn't a note about anyone soliciting permission on WP:CP.  Did you solicit permission from the webpage?  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 00:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I take this to be a no. Would you mind undeleting it so that we might track down the claim to permission?  Thank you.  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The statement that might or might not be a statement of permission is on the talk page: Talk:Atlanta International School. --Carnildo 00:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, look. I don't care that much about the article, and if you really want to keep it deleted, I won't press the issue.  Someone at WP:CP thought that statement was sufficiently close to permission to place the article under the "Author claims permission" heading so that it might be investigated. But if its important to you, I'll let this go. --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another image question
Hi Carnildo -- yet another question from a clueless editor. :) Take a look at Image:RGB-raleigh skyline1.jpg -- since this is intended as a publicity shot from the chamber of commerce, is it OK to fair-use it as a demonstrative photo that's intended for wide distribution?  Thanks --  Pack n Canes  |   say something!   21:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, but it's also a photo that's quite easy for a Wikipedian in the area to replace. I'd suggest asking around for someone to provide a bunch of free-license photos of the area. --Carnildo 23:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I can do it myself...since I live in Raleigh and such. I just wanted to establish a precedent, and this seemed to be an easy way to do it.  Thanks for your help --  Pack n Canes  |   say something!   04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

St Michael's Grammar School
Thanks for ending the madness. Harro5 08:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a few days of page protection will be enough. --Carnildo 08:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My pic
My tenth doctor pic I got from the BBC Doctor Who slight though it were slightly modifyed (made smaller), sadly the image is gone from my computer. Don't suppose you can restore it please?

Template:Tonofedits
I added the infinity sign there to jokingly refer to editcountitis and to imply that these users are still adding new edits. Somehow I just dont find the 1 Ton weight as funny. ALKIVAR &trade; 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)