User talk:Cohesion/Archive2

Devolution
Thanks for your kind words re: devolution (fallacy). I took the liberty of using your quote in a submission for Article_rescue_contest for a bit of fun. I would have voted to delete as well at the time, but as soon as we decided to change the article's title, I realised that it had some potential. As someone who was never fortunate enough to study biology academically, it always astounds me how so many people in this world misunderstand the seemingly simple concepts of evolution and natural selection. Doing anything that may help redress this balance is always a pleasure. Majts 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rondelet at Rice
I didn't want to take the liberty of editing the original Rondelet entry. If you think that it is apropriate, can you modify it to point to my entry?

Wilderness on wheels
The funny thing about this one is, there actually does seem to be such an organization. Alas, the article was a copyvio of, so I deleted it anyway, but it amuses me. It just might have actually been someone trying to publicize their organization and just happened to have the misfortune of...that...name. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

38th SS Division Nibelungen
Why did you remove much information from 38th SS Division Nibelungen? lease, explain in the edit summary such big changes.--Panairjdde 08:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was trying to wikify that and it included a lot of very difficult to understand information, I thought it would be better to have it clear rather than in half-german. I will revert it though if you'd rather deal with it :) - cohesion  &#9733;  talk  09:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Article on "Foot"
I'd like to say something on your reversal of one of my edits:

In the "Foot covering" section of this article, it originally stated that the sight of bare feet might be considered offensive in cultures where shoes are rarely removed. This was immediately followed by Thailand and Arab countries as examples. I deleted the "where shoes are rarely removed" part because it would be ironic for the reader to realise that Thailand and Arabia are, in fact, places where people go barefoot a lot, both for religious reasons and lack of money. The example used still holds true: Is really is offensive to show the soles of one's feet in these cultures, even though being barefoot itself is common.

After I made the above edit, you immediately went and reversed my change. Therefore, I would like to request that you consider my reasoning and make a better judgement on this one. Thanks a lot ^.~ --219.77.137.199 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't object to the factual basis of your edit, I was refering instead to the commentary nature. I misinterpreted your edit as a comment about the article rather than a contribution to it, I have edited the article Foot to include the information I think you meant to add in a way that doesn't seem like commentary, but feel free to make any changes as you see fit. Sorry for any confusion :D - cohesion &#9733; talk 07:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Conflicts
Hi. I received a message from you telling me that I should add a source and copyright information. Didn't I already do that when I said that free to be released? I am confused. -Doanison
 * Oops, looking back, you tagged almost all of them, I only looked at one or two you uploaded and by chance those were ones that you didn't tag Image:Fuse 2.jpg for example. Sorry about that, and yeah you did it correctly on most of them :D Sorry for any confusion. - cohesion &#9733; talk 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

user: colm rice
Hi. Can you help me please? Can you recommend an Open Source license for the image that you indicated. I would like to make the image widely available provided that the user just cites the photographer (which was me). Can you recommend an appliucable license? Thanks
 * Sure, for those requirements, I would suggest the Creative Commons Attribution, ShareAlike 2.5 license. The template is here Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5 and you can read the actual license from their site . To add that license, you can just go to the image file you uploaded and click edit, then after the description somewhere type . I know all this licensing is crazy, our copyright laws don't make it simple :D - cohesion &#9733; talk 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:LewisvilleLakeTollBridge.jpg
Thanks for alerting me about untagged Image:LewisvilleLakeTollBridge.jpg. I have since tagged it. Here I am tagging other people's pictures, and I forget to tag my own. Thanks again for alerting me about this and for notifying people about their images. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I hadn't seen the template and now I'm using it too :D I got a little bonus tagging ;)  - cohesion &#9733; talk 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Image:Lighthouse2.jpg

I have since tagged the aforemetioned picture. I will see that any pictures taken by myself will be similarly tagged.

Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMattUncropped.jpg
I didn't realize that this image was still here. It was uploaded as part of FP debate with the intention of deleting it as soon as the debate was finished. Although the manuscript by itself is (IMO) eligible for, this image isn't because of the surroundings. A cropped version of the image that only has the central PD portion already exists on WP (and is a FP). Dsmdgold 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will just leave it as is and let an admin delete it after the time expires. It is a nice picture though, refreshing to see in the list of pokemon and b-list actors that aren't tagged, haha. - cohesion &#9733; talk 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fapic Deletion.
The picture I used is from the Mayo Clinic Official Bio Webpage. The picture used on that page is a facsimile. The original is in the possession of my family. I am not sure how to signify this on the copyright information.Dlayiga 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, so it sounds like you are the person that has the original family picture, so you are free to license it however you might want. Your options are listed on the Image copyright tags page. To remain on wikipedia it needs to be some sort of free license, there are a lot to choose from, if you need any help feel free to just tell me what you require from a license and I might be able to help you pick one out. The two I would suggest looking at first are or  Thanks again :D - cohesion &#9733; talk 05:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tag
Image:Linden Park-Greenhill Rd.jpg now has an appropriate tag, both conditional to the wishes of the source and wikipedia. Thanks for alerting me to the possible violation and allowing me to rectify it.

Cheers, -  Gt 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Club Deportivo motif
Hi. You put a deletion notice on Image:Federal.gif. I believe I have now licenced it as, I certainly recognise the motif and it is genuine. Can you make sure everything is okay and either dispute my licence (and let me know) or remove the deletion notice. Cheers, SqueakBox 14:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging that, I thought it might be a sports logo but wasn't sure. It's fine too, we are allowed to use logos :D - cohesion &#9733; talk 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Castle
Sorry about that I uploaded it ages ago - fixed.

Lionel Bowen
If express written permission from the copyright holder to use the photo is not good enough, then the image cannot be saved. It doesn't come under the 1955 rule. Adam 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The best tag I can see for it is but the warning on that says it may be deleted, because it's not free etc. There is a decision to have only freely licensed images so they can be used in other projects etc. I will tag it with permission and let other people do whatever they do with them :( - cohesion &#9733; talk 07:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging
Thanks for the note on the missing copyright status for Image:Llamaheadshot.jpg. I uploaded it a long time ago, I guess before I knew much about the image copyright system. I don't suppose there's a tag that makes it free for use, so long as it isn't defaced by vandals, is there? :) Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image Tagging Image:LocationAsia.png
Hi Judson, thanks for informing me of the pending deletion of this image. The original image that I uploaded was tagged, as is evidenced by the edit history (second edit, I forgot first time around), as being from the Wikipedia commons. Obviously such a tag would be inappropriate for the current version, however I cannot offer any advice other than to talk to User:E Pluribus Anthony (which I see you have already done). Sorry I cannot be of more help on this matter, Rje 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:LocationAsia.png
Hi there! Thanks for your note. From what I can tell – i.e., from glancing at a – this map (and the prototype continental locator map and kin) was derived early last year from the PDF world map produced by the CIA World Factbook, then rasterised. I then stumbled across them, coloured them 'accurately' by comparing them with other such maps online, and placed them consistently within the 'continent' template.

These are great world maps and should be tagged appropriately, not nixed. I hope that helps; please let me know if you've any questions or need assistance tagging these images properly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, great, I will tag them as Template:PD-USGov-CIA-WF which is public domain, thanks for your help! :D -cohesion &#9733; talk 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! As well, I will similarly tag additional 'kindred' images I come across.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:Image:Lonelyisland.jpeg
Hey, I don't know if I did something wrong when I upped the lonely island image but in the comments I clearly stated that the image is avb from the thelonelyisland.com under a creative common lisence and it is free to distribute. I don't know what I need to do to make that clear so it doesn't get deleted. -- Schalicto 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From their website it says "All materials are copyright © 2000-2005 Snuglar Entertainment. Some of the content may be redistributed, sampled, and remixed under this Creative Commons License." But it doesn't make clear which is full copyright and which can be redistributed. Regardless the creative commons license they picked does not allow for commercial redistribution, and is not compatible with the GFDL. Wikipedia is non-commercial, but the GFDL allows people to use content for commercial reasons as long as they retain the license. That's how places like about.com and the other million mirrors are legal. So, I don't know, If you actually know these people maybe you could get them to release it under gfdl, or the creative commons By-Sa-2.5 license, if they would rather stick with creative commons. They would only have to change the license on this one image, not their whole site or anything, and an email saying that was the case to you would be fine :D Hope it works out! - cohesion &#9733; talk 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)