User talk:Cohesion/Archive5

Lipscomb
My sister also went to Lipscomb (nursing school, Amy.) I'm having a lot of fun researching the Church of Christ bios...a lot of what's out there is hagiographic so you have to filter it a bit, but it's fascinating to me to trace who influenced whom, the debates of the period and how they were/weren't resolved. Large cast of characters, though, bit like The Lord of the Rings (or LOST!) Alan Canon 23:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain this
Please explain to me why you have reverted edits on my talk page to a previous state. Pedant 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, the same comment was actually cross-posted to about 50 user talk pages at the same time, which is generally thought of as spamming. To prevent the "benefits" of spamming like this often the changes will be reverted. Since there were so many I unfortunately couldn't add a very descriptive edit summary, which admittedly would have been more helpful. If you have any other questions let me know. - cohesion 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the quick explanation. I appreciate your edit. Pedant 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images wrongly marked as unsourced
I have talked with others, and it is standard to include a source (aka, who took them and/or from where the image has been picked, not just a slight description of the show). Only promotional images do not need a source, as they have been released by companies themselves.

My idea is to replace every image that has been tagged with a valid licensed and sourced image, with a fair use rationale, which I cannot right now add as I have not uploaded the image. -- ReyBrujo 12:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * After privately talking with a friend, I have decided to revert the changes I have made. While I don't agree per my previous statement, I agreed with him to only keep tagged images that have the screenshot Fair use license but no description of the show where they have been found. -- ReyBrujo 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be ideal if every screenshot included a source like "Captured by User:Blah with a XYZ video card", the more information the better. My personal take on it though is that there are so many clear cut no source at all completely untagged images why not work on those and make less people upset with the process? In other words, when you have tens of thousands of clear cut copyright violations, why waste time on the gray-area contentious ones that take longer to process? But on a technical level I do agree with you that a full source is always better. - cohesion 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You should talk to the other editors involved and battling Acuman
Firstly the point has been established but he twists and turns all routes. Then when things quiet down he starts again. This was theoritically settled, but he starts the cycle all over again. The same evidence is used and shows that he is wrong, then he quiets down, and then again he startts. All means have been exausted with this problamatic individual. He beleives his opinions and personal views over rule the presented facts. It is like a regressive cycle. Invistegae for your self. You are not censoring him and you should not be sorry for doing what is right. 72.57.230.179 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm replying here only. I don't really think what Aucaman did was that bad actually, it's just a fairly minor thing with talk page messaging. Please don't assume that just because I reverted them that I think he is wrong about some tangential pov dispute, or that I am "involved and battling" him. I'm not, and I hope the disputes on the articles he's working on get settled, articles that are incidentally on subject areas I know next to nothing about. - cohesion 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Image: 13 Vendémaire
Hi there,

In future, perhaps use some common sense before requesting images be deleted. This image is quite obviously a period engraving. 1987 is the year the piece was catalogued by the Musées de la Ville de Paris.--ansbachdragoner 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Journée of 13 Vendémaire, Year 4, The St. Roch Church, Honoré Street.

Source: © Photothèque des Musées de la Ville de Paris/Habouzit for 1987 CAR 5607 NB
 * Yes, can you clarify who has the copyright for that image though, as you have included both a statement that it is public domain as well as "© Photothèque des Musées de la Ville de Paris/Habouzit" Is this an image of a two dimensional work taken in Europe, do you think Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies? Common sense doesn't always apply to copyright law unfortunately, and there is no need to attack me about it. And just to be clear, I didn't request the image be deleted, I requested the source information/license be clarified, so that hopefully we can keep the image. - cohesion 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if i was a tad blunt before, it juist seems a tad overwhelming what with the current Wikipedia trend which is less edits and more copyright paranoia. I deal with 'real-world' copyright law on a day to day basis, and i have yet to come across any organisation or body which operates on as strict and ruthless guidelines as some editors on wikipedia seem to. In answer to your question, yes Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does apply to this case, as it is clearly a photographic reproduction of a PD image held by the Musées de la Ville de Paris.--ansbachdragoner 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, I understand how it can seem like someone is trying to delete your images. :) I was actually in the process of moving images over to the commons, not trying to delete them. (sometimes the commons people are pretty strict on licensing and it's better if there is absolutely no confusion before the move) I changed the tag based on what you said, feel free to change it back if you think it's not an improvement. - cohesion 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion...
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Norfolkcoa.jpg
I noticed that after Norfolkcoa.jpg was deleted, you removed the link to it from the Norfolk County, Ontario article. According to a warning placed on this Image's page a week ago, it was deleted because it was only tagged as a Coat of Arms, which does not necessarily mean it is fair use. I'm the person who uploaded this image and I included comments explaining why I thought it qualified as fair use, and provided a link for the source. I thought that this would be OK, because the uploaded Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms is also only tagged as a Coat of Arms and provides a link to its source, but has no explicit justification for Fair Use.

Both Coat of Arms images (Ottawa and my deleted Norfolk) have the same source: www.gg.ca - City of Ottawa www.gg.ca - Corporation of Norfolk County

The point of my long-winded comment is:
 * Do you know why these two images were treated differently?
 * If there was no significant difference, does that mean the Ottawa COA image should be deleted, or that the Norfolk COA image should not have been deleted?
 * Most importantly, if you don't know the answer to these questions, do you know where I should ask them?

Thanks! --thirty-seven 09:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer to these questions on my talk page. --thirty-seven 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:CockpitComputerlores.JPG
Thank you for the copyright notice requiring a source to be given. Not every image will be on the web and so quoting a source without giving personal details is difficult. The original user who uploaded the photo is not a regular Wikipedia user. When the first copyright notice appeared I tracked him down using his glider's registration number and got his permission for the free use but copyrighted tag to be included. I cannot quote his e-mail address as a source, so I hope that including his user ID in the source box will suffice. Failing that is there an wiki-affidavit? JMcC 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, just a short sentence about how you got the image is probably fine, that the image creator said it was licensed this way etc. Now it just seems confusing because you have a name, "Photo by John Smith", but people don't know if that's you, or someone else. Does that person even know it's on wikipedia etc. There's no formal way to do it, and there probably doesn't need to be, but a tiny bit more info would be helpful probably. :) - cohesion 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Morgoth vs fingolfin.jpg
While you're right that Image:Morgoth vs fingolfin.jpg is a drawing, it still isn't one of the standard test images, and thus qualifies for speedy deletion per CSD I7 because it's tagged Standard test, which is wrong. --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:PonteBurgoPontevedra.jpg
I don't recall uploading the image. It's deleted already though. Nothing else to do, just thought you should know.--the Dannycas 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :) - cohesion 23:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging
Thanks for the heads up. I do know about the date-based categories, but recently I've noticed a few instances where images older than a week were still around, and their category had been deleted. I certainly don't want to clog the speedy deletion page, but image tagging is something I do a lot of (not being an admin, I don't have the ability to help out on the backlog that develops sometimes) and perhaps I got a bit overzealous. : ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image removal of GN Ramachandran: pl clarify
I have cited the source while uploading the image

Nattu 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is in regards to image Image:GN Ramachandran.jpg which was deleted. The reason for deletion was that the copyright tag was magazinecover, but the image was probably not a magazine cover. That tag is a fair use tag and has very specific copyright requirements. Fair use images are not freely licensed, so we can't use them in any way we want, but only in very specific ways as laid out in copyright law. For an example of a magazine cover image used correctly see Allure (magazine). In that case the image is a cover, and the image is being used as an example of the content of the article. We can talk about magazines, but we can't re-purpose their photography without their licensing the work to us. If you have any questions about that let me know. The fair use article is fairly informative also. - cohesion 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion
Hi there. I noticed an image got deleted, but when I read the reason for deletion (see ) I wasn't able to see the picture or the tag used to see what you meant by "unrelated to the content of the image". Can you help? Carcharoth 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, the template was Standard test, which is a fair use tag used for Standard test images, a very specific type of image that is used in image processing normalization. The reason for deletion was CSD:I7, which states "Invalid fair-use claim. Any image with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) can be deleted at any time." If you have any questions let me know. - cohesion 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect it may have been wrongly tagged. But part of the problem is that I cannot be sure because I cannot see the picture any more because it has been deleted. That is what I was really asking when I said "can you help" - what did the picture look like?? I have vague memories, but nothing certain. Carcharoth 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect it may have been wrongly tagged. But part of the problem is that I cannot be sure because I cannot see the picture any more because it has been deleted. That is what I was really asking when I said "can you help" - what did the picture look like?? I have vague memories, but nothing certain. Carcharoth 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was tagged incorrectly. Unfortunately I don't remember exactly what the image looked like, it seems vaguely like it was a largish mostly red and black image of a fight? That could be completely wrong though. Hundreds of images are deleted every day, and in that batch I probably did 50ish. Sorry I couldn't be any more help. Mediawiki does not store images that have been deleted. If you would like to pursue getting the image back and tagging it correctly the user that uploaded it was User:Ted87. I also don't want you to think we are just deleting things punitively. While the tag was wrong, there was no obvious correct tag that would allow us to keep the image. - cohesion 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for talking about it and letting me know about the new undeletion option - though surely that will only work for a set period of time? - otherwise the space taken up by deleted images will be immense. As for what the picture was, from looking at this Google Images search and your description, and from my memory as well, I think it looks like the picture was the one being used at this wiki here. I'll contact Ted87 and see if he can upload it again and put the correct tag on it. Thanks. Carcharoth 08:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

 * awesome, thanks :D - cohesion 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG
This user will not quit. He has vandalized my talkpage numerous times over the past three days
 * Today he deleted comments of other users with no explanation, protecting my talkpage without any justification, deleting my response to his harassment on my talkpage with the bizarre edit summary "Since you are saying goodbye, let's assume you mean it, eh?", and then leaving this threatening message to intimidate me into leaving.

Before that he vandalized my talkpage. Then when I reverted another user assumed he was right and reverted to JzG's version, but realized he was wrong and apologized. I was cordially and said it was alright. JzG has left numerous uncivil comments on my talkpage that can be viewed if one goes through the history of the page. He has also repeatedly been warned. I want him blocked immediately. Tchadienne 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is being handled by other people, I'm not taking any action. I hope it works out for everyone involved. - cohesion 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Watchlist?
Is there some sort of watchlist of users and anon-IPs for admins to give a heads up on potential vandals? --NEMT 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unsure what you're looking for so this might be a little long. If you're looking to help with vandalism by seeing a list of possible vandals, I would suggest reading Cleaning up vandalism and Counter-Vandalism Unit. There is no single list of people because vandalism on wikipedia is fairly complex. Those two pages should start you off on ways that people can help though if you're interested in that.


 * The other possibility is that you see some vandalism and are looking for the right place to report it for other people, in that case the correct place is Administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope that helps, and if I completely misunderstood your question let me know. :) - cohesion 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bdi architecture.gif
Hi Cohesion. The image of a BDI architecture is one for which you asked the uploader (not me) to clarify its copyright status. It is virtually identical to a diagram in a paper presented to the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and published in the proceedings. (See Decision-Making in an Embedded Reasoning System.) The text is identical and the layout nearly so. Copyright presumably therefore lies with the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. Is there a fair use argument for academic papers? Pingku 06:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I was under the impression that it was user created, but it seems to not be. There is a possible fair use claim, but the image still needs to be properly sourced. I retagged the image and left a note on the uploader's page, but if you know about the image as well feel free to update it. - cohesion 07:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

dr phil
sorry dude, some kid was over here messing with the computer last night....
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. - cohesion 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Conferencegta4.JPG
I'm sure the image after deleted will be uploaded again because these users are fighting to keep the image in Grand Theft Auto IV article. Keep attention on they: User:HawkerTyphoon, User:PatrickSW, User:Yeanold Viskersenn. Their objective isn't provide a source and yes force to keep the image without responsabilities and consequences. --Canadian Eclat 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am watching the page, we'll see how it goes. :) - cohesion 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

GTA 4 Picture
Greetings! I assume you've seen the problems for the GTA 4 image, and was wondering if you could quickly tell me what's wrong with the source "taken from the E3 website during the convention."? I can't get any more specific than that I don't think, unless perhaps I note down the E3 website? HawkerTyphoon 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, usually with images from websites the url is given. I think you already found the actual person that took the photo? You said "copyright is held by 'Jordan, IGN, Microsoft'". If that's the photographer that's great, although you might want to state it more clearly. I think with the source url and fair use claim everything should be ok though. I don't think it's a good candidate for speedy delete anyway. - cohesion 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Brett Favre Image
Did the image that you had removed have an invalid tag? I hope you didn't have it removed for its quality, because it is better than no image. Please respond here on your talk page. Cheers! RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was very good quality I thought, the most unfortunate one in that set. It was an incorrect tag as you said. The uploader got it from flickr, and that flickr person had licensed it under creative commons attribution noncommercial 2.0, but the uploader changed the tag to attribution only, I believe. Anyway, since the license didn't match the source, and there was no evidence the actual flickr user changed what they wanted it seemed like the uploader did it themselves. All of that was noticed by someone more observant than I, and tagged as speedy delete for noncommercial images. I would never remove a free content image for quality concerns unless there was a better one already uploaded, does anyone do that? - cohesion 00:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I was worried based on your edit summary to the Favre article. The image was removed properly. I thought that I should ask, because I thought that you had it removed based on its quality. I was going to point out what you said in your last sentence. I'm glad I asked. I've been watching the Favre article lately due to its heavy vandalism and controversies. Cheers! RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

raw option
yeah, that is exactly what i was asking about :D thanks for your help dr.ef.tymac 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, glad that worked out :) - cohesion 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :) - cohesion 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

invitation
Hello, you are invited to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Houston to participate in Project discussion - Guidelines (November 11, 2006). Thank you, Postoak 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner
Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perplexed
Hi, Judson.

Aside from imposing the founders' philosophies about "Information" being free (which seems rather generous a position to take with someone else's research or art,) why is it that Wikipedia "must" have so broad a license on pictures to accept a license for this venue?

THANKS!

--JT 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is free content. It is a philosophical decision that we have made. I can explain it, but I don't know if it would convince you. It isn't just something that jimbo decided from above though, it is something that we all agree with, otherwise we wouldn't work on it. I have to say also, it's not a position people take with other people's work. It's something that every content creator needs to decide for themselves. Many people don't want to license their work under free licenses, and that's fine! That sort of licensing structure isn't for everyone, or everything. Other people are willing to do it though, and want their work to be as available as possible. If that doesn't describe your wishes, don't think people are chastising you, be thankful the images got removed before they were copied all over the internet :) - cohesion 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll share it while keeping it under my control, via external link. We'll agree to disagree about the whole imposing/leveraging against other people's prerogatives, but I DO think if Jimbo's vision of such a body of knowledge being totally free in 100 years is to come true, it will have to become more respectful of the value and proprietary right of the efforts of the individual (or start financing those $20,000 trips to Africa). Otherwise, the really worthwhile content that cost money to create will still have to be paid for by commercial means, which precludes it being Free. I'd also make distinction between Knowledge and Original Property. They are not one in the same, though the lines of distinction aren't always clear. Knowledge was given by some other source. Original Content/Property took independent effort and expense to create, and so doesn't fall into the same category. It can't, unless you want only the vainglorious out there blowing their own horn on Wikipedia. That's how my analysis comes out, anyway. Peace... --JT 06:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

 * Enjoy the meal!  T ennis Dy  N  ami  T  e  (sign in) 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither-nor
Thanks for the clarification about using the template. To clear things up for you, "nor" goes with "neither" and "or" goes with "either". So, it's "neither...nor..." and "either...or...". ---Remember the dot 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah I know how that works for some reason I got a weird random question mark. :O I'm not a robot I promise! hehe. - cohesion 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ambareesh.jpg
Hello Cohesion, thanks for your message. But it would beeter if you go through history before tagging no source for old uploaded images, like Image:Ambareesh.jpg. Because some anon-vandals could have removed the source and tag. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that batch was much older than I had realized, sorry about that :) - cohesion 16:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Anisakids.jpg
Hi there. Looks like the copyright status info for this image was deleted in some vandalism. I've rolled it back to the version which I uploaded, which included a {PD} tag, as it was an image I'd created. Thanks for spotting this. Anilocra 12:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that batch was way old, I found it an odd way, and didn't really realize how stale they were, sorry about that :) - cohesion 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey thanks for cleaning up my James Kim article... I'm still new at this stuff you know :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianEd (talk • contribs).


 * No problem, if you ever have a question let me know, or ask on any help page :) Hope you decide to stick around! - cohesion 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on Flickr
I have a few images on Flickr/Creative Commons that I'd like to upload, but I'm not fully sure if they are legal. The licenses vary. What is the difference between Creative Commons 2.0 and 2.5 licensing?

Here are a few examples, can they be uploaded and used in an article?


 * Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 -
 * Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 -
 * Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 -

Perhaps we should add a quick reference list of all legal licenses and how they are worded/described on some of the CC resources? Thank you for your help Postoak 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The general view is that all creative commons licenses are ok except for non-commercial ones, and no-deriv ones. So, only the middle on is ok. Any combination of ShareAlike, and Attribution is ok. We have wikipedia tags for them also cc-by-2.5, cc-by-sa-2.0 etc. All the different versions are ok, so you don't really have to worry about that at all. If you go to the flickr advanced search and click only cc license, and then both the checks under that for commercial, and derivative works being ok you will only get results that are ok to use on wikipedia. I love flickr, haha - cohesion 01:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Image:Hsr350x.JPG listed for deletion" Response
I personally did not understand how to post these image files. It was interesting. I sort of tried putting up some photoes that must be deleted, It was experimental. However, these images I posted are very famous and thousands of copies of these photos exists, since it was publically pictured from Korean Railway Research Institude. Nevertheless, the recent image I post it up, is HSR 350x.JPG, and this image is my own work and I own this image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesshin92 (talk • contribs).


 * Hi, there seems to be a lot going on with this image, so I'll give you a rundown :) It looks like the original source is here. It was then uploaded to the commons, and deleted for not having a source. It was then uploaded to enwiki (Image:Hsr350x.JPG), and autotagged by the dropdown as a speedy delete candidate because you had specified it was only to be used on wikipedia. (This is not accurate, since as far as I know you don't have permission, but even if you did that is not compatible with GFDL). I noticed this in speedy delete, and left a note on your talk page, but didn't delete it right away. You then changed the license to PD-self, which implies that you created the image and are the copyright holder. You then delinked that image, reuploaded it under another name (Image:HSR 350X.JPG), and removed any evidence that you found it on a korean website, claiming, again, that you were the copyright holder. Please read Image use policy, our copyright restrictions are sometimes surprising for people, who may have never had to deal with intellectual property before. Basically the images you upload, except in rare circumstances need to be actually created by you. As in you got a camera and took the picture. Also, since you had mentioned some of these were test images, if you ever need to delete your own test image just add db-author to it and someone will delete it shortly. I will assume good faith with this, but just to let you know, falsifying license information, is kinda bad. I don't want to seem like I'm being mean, and this is kinda long, but if you have any other questions feel free to ask. :) - cohesion 18:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out, Cohesion - images are still Greek to me. Sandy (Talk) 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been trying to help out a bit, since I saw the article at FA, but I've asked Korean-speaking people to take over. Thanks again, Sandy (Talk) 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Speeedy deletion and Copyrights and Images" Response
I am very suprised for your response. And, I'm very disappointed about the strictness of the copyright, but I'm still happy. I am waiting patiently right now for you to answer two massive questions for me immediately in my talk page:D. Sorry if I distracted you.--Jamesshin92 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :) We can continue the discussion on your talk page, you don't need to update this one if you have followup questions :) - cohesion 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my images
I got your message regarding valid images and description. Im working on getting all the images to be valid on your site. Please give me time I just created my account also few days ago. As you see a few other ones I worked on and found the valid info. Thanks. Ararat arev 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, the images are done by a large group of people, so some of them may be deleted, once you find the correct info though you can always reupload them :D - cohesion 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Annang picture response
Thanks for the tag on the picture I placed at Annang. I went back and cited it, then I contacted the possible copyright holder and got permission. I like the notion of copyright but feel that scanning in a section of a diagram or picture when proper credit is given is a permissible use.

Having received permission, I was sending the Wikipedia copyright page to the holder since it was the first time they had received such a request. Then I noticed Crown copyrights expires after 50 years from the first year of publication. It is 100 years in the US. So I assume that if the map comes from my personal copy of a book that was published in London in 1950 and again in 1967, Wikipedia really does not need one? Would that be your understanding?

Appreciate your experience. --Rcollman 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent! If it was published before 1956 you should use PD-BritishGov, and it is public domain :D Thanks for looking in to that. You don't actually need permission for the image, but if you want to mention that you got it that is ok too :) - cohesion 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Houston article
Peer review is in progess for Houston, Texas at Peer review/Houston, Texas/archive1. Please participate with the article improvement suggestions that will soon follow. Thanks, Postoak 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update, maybe eventually I can get to some more of the project pages and check for images :D - cohesion 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like most of the images you recommended that we review have been replaced and/or fixed. Thanks again for your help here. Is there anything I can do to enhance this image of the port from the Houston article? It doesn't look very sharp, but it's free :) Thanks Postoak 07:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24
Reference page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24

Issue: You removed an image that from the page.

Is there a reason why you removed an image of the B-24 which is property of the United States Air Force?

You can find the image here: http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=161&page=5

1940's -- A Consolidated B-24 Liberator from Maxwell Field, Alabama, four engine pilot school, glistens in the sun as it makes a turn at high altitude in the clouds. Heavy Bombers. (U.S. Air Force photos) Download Full Image | E-mail a friend

I would apprecaite if you would not remove images that are copyrighted by the United States military (which is part of the federal government for future reference). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Signaleer (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks for reuploading that image with the correct source and attribution, it previously didn't mention the source, which, in addition to license, we do require. For more information see Image use policy. Also, please assume good faith, no one is trying to remove good images from articles, but we do need to be able to verify that the copyright status is correct. - cohesion 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooops, your mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Signaleer (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Maybe I was unclear, the image did not have a source, and it needed one. After looking at many of the other images you have uploaded most do not contain a source, although they are apparently from the US government. I didn't tag them as no source, but be aware they may be tagged at any time by others. In order to keep these very good, and probably public domain images it would be best if you could add their source now, rather than have them be deleted at some point in the future when you may not be an active contributor. Also, if you can't remain civil in these very mundane discussions don't expect further communication from me. I wouldn't normally have replied to your last comment, but I would actually like to keep the images in wikipedia, because I think they are good. - cohesion 06:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Db-unksource
Hi Cohesion. I just raised the issue of this template at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I see that you asked pretty much the same question on the template's talk page, and thought you'd be interested. Cheers ×Meegs 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks!, I commented :) - cohesion 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments on IntraTextualAmbiguity
Hi and thanks much for your feedback! Please note User:Dreftymac/Docs/IntraTextualAmbiguity was moved to User:Dreftymac/Docs/RealWorldAmbiguity for sake of simplification. If you happen to come across any "more establised" articles that discuss this or similar issues, I would be happy to know about it, since it is nice to be able to avoid my re-invention of pre-existing wheels whenever possible. Thanks again! dr.ef.tymac 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti Attacks
I have reviewed the history of changes on the Marfan Syndrome article over the past few weeks and have noticed an occassional graffito is written into the article. The vandals perpetrating these attacks usually do it without logging in, thus leaving no contributor trace. I recommend that whenever any of the responsibly acting contributors log in to do some more editing, first look at the most recent edit. If it is an anonymous edit, just revert the article to the previous edit before doing more edits. Leeirons 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, I'll keep an eye out :) - cohesion 13:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexandre Frota
Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.

(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)

Thanks. &mdash; Chidom  talk   02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thank you cohesion for your much appreciated help with deleting my images. Have a safe and peaceful Happy New Year! --Extranet (Talk 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston
Please see proposal December 27, 2006/Featured article nomination at WikiProject Houston/Administration. Thank you, Postoak 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ps. Hope you're enjoying your wikibeak! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Postoak (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


 * If you have a minute, please go to Talk:George Bush Intercontinental Airport, evaluate the photo that is being disputed and provide your input. Happy New Year! Postoak 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, looks like I'm in the other camp though! Sorry :O - cohesion 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Ha ha ha, thanks... everybody seems to like that picture, it's my most-"favorited" on Flickr. Somebody contacted me about putting it on an album cover, although I dunno what will end up happening with that. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

image:UH005.gif
Hello Cohesion,

I see that you recently deleted images UH005.gif and other important UH-related images. These were images of the logo and mascot of University of Houston. I missed the argument for their deletion, and was unaware they were on the chopping block. Could you give me a little more background on why logos of a public university were deleted, when every other major university I look up has it's logo and/or seal at the top of the article and mascot in the sports section? Even if it had a tagging problem, it was a logo for a public university and I would rather it had been corrected than deleted. Viewing an archive I see that they were tagged as logos, and should fall under WP:L. I am considering reuploading it myself because I strongly feel that University of Houston should have it's logo,seal, and mascot on it's article page.

Thanks for your time,

--Rgb9000 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes they probably should be re-uploaded. The problem was they didn't supply a source, and I couldn't add that since I didn't know where they came from. I usually will tag them correctly if they are just tagged wrong, but no source is a little harder. Usually it's better to re-upload them from somewhere where you know where they came from rather than guess. I do think they are fine to be tagged with logo though, and are definitely valid under fair use. Sorry for the disruption. :) - cohesion 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use_rationale_guideline
You probably want to read my comment there. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
Hi Cohesion!

You've left some messages about the Admin Coaching program on the new Admin Coaching talk page. Your first comment states that you're an "outsider". I hate that anyone feels like "an outsider" to begin with. I left a comment on the page to that effect, but wanted to contact you personally. You've left some comments on the page about exclusion of users, or about feeling excluded, and I think it's important to address those concerns, and fix as necessary.

I've been seeking feedback on the admin coaching program since the MFD of Esperanza. Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you, Cohesion, on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve.

Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample).

Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Commented at the page, I definitely didn't mean to imply anything was wrong with the actual coaching, I'm sure you do a great job! :D - cohesion 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but if you decide there's a problem, I do hope you will feel free to speak your mind, and comment on the page. The program should always be open to new ideas, and there really never should be this feeling of someone being excluded, or feeling excluded, you know? Anyway, thanks for your comments. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

about my picture...
thanks for pointing out that the pic was not lisenced. how do i change the copyright info of a pic that has already been uploaded? Use the force 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm glad you responded! All you need to do it pick the way you would like to license the image from the tags available on Image copyright tags in the section called "for image creators", then on the image page, click "edit", then replace the tag that says with the one you would like, including the double brackets. Be sure to tag the other images you uploaded also. If you have any questions let me know! - cohesion 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't me! :)
Regarding the image of Peter Davison (Image:Davisonpeter.jpg) -- I wasn't the one who put that up there. All I did was inadvertently click the "revert" link, then revert my reversion. (Then, today, I did the same thing. I'm a doofus. :) ) So you'll want to leave any messages concerning the image copyright for whoever originally posted it, or at least whoever posted the most recent version. Happy New Year! --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, someone already put the source on anyway :) - cohesion 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zetasport.jpg and Image:Zeta.jpg
I've added fairuse claims and added source deails for both images. Regards. &mdash;Moondyne 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks :) - cohesion 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BICity.jpg
Hi,

I tried to contact the photographer a long time ago but never received a response. I had forgotten all about it. As stated on the image page, this was downloaded from the city website. I have no other information. --Dennis Fernkes 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I went through a few of the older ones yesterday. Maybe someone else will notice it and know where it came from, but I wouldn't be too hopeful :( - cohesion 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirection deletion
You deleted the redirect "Jamaican bobsled team". Although the target was deleted at the time, it was deleted due to copyright issues rather than lack of notability (it has at least two other language articles). The redirect was not re-created when a non-copyvio article was created. Andjam 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm unclear what you are asking though. I see you have remade the redirect, so I don't know what else needs to be done. - cohesion 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noting what happened so you can try to avoid it in future if practical. Andjam 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

removing images from the lafayette escadrile page
hi it appears that you're responsible for removing two images that i painstakingly added to wiki. why?

images: Lafayette group.jpg and LafayetteEscadrille's38PilotsPlaque.jpg from the Lafayette Escadrille page.

The original group photo - I own - and the artist/photographer is unknown.

The plaque picture has been reproduced many times without a copyright source and again there's no known source for the copyright.

Removing these pictures did an enormous disservice to those who use wiki and I hope you'll help restore them to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gderamel (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Please see Image use policy, if you have any questions I can answer them, or they can be answered at Media copyright questions. The image in question was not tagged at all with any image license tag. Someone then tagged it as needing one and it sat in that queue for 7 days. As per policy, after that, images are deleted. If you know the license status, feel free to upload it again, and follow the instructions at Image use policy. All of this is explained also by the detailed messages that were automatically left on your user page User talk:Gderamel. If you are willing to answer this, I would be interested in knowing, for improved usability in the system and general quality improvement. How did you perceive the warnings on your user page? Did they make sense? Did you have further questions? - cohesion 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lady Birdwood image.
Why was this image deleted? It was not under copyright. See;


 * All images are copyrighted when they are created, no special act has to occur. For more information see our image use policy or the main article on copyright. This particular image was not tagged, and no copyright information was given. - cohesion 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp
Hi Cohesion - thanks for sorting things out for me with the postards image. I'm still not 100% clear on copyright/authorship issues etc (ie I don't know if I hold copyright even - not that I'm bothered), but as long as someone in the know reckons that PD is the best licence, I'm happy! Cheers Jasper33 09:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's a little weird, but I think you have the best claim to being the copyright holder. :) - cohesion 11:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro
NP - thanks for taking an aggressive stand - it is an important page and the more people that watch it occasionally and let the bot operators know that things are working the better - especially since I am not on as frequently as before. -- Trödel 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons
Cohesion, thanks for your note. Glad the commons/Wikipedia Image:Family-in-a-box-Minneapolis.jpg topic worked out so well. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright issues for dummies
No objections here, as I said on it's talk page back in June. Anyone who can think of a better name can go right ahread and rename it as far as I'm concerned. --Sherool (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

danah boyd move proposal
You might want to add your own name to one section or the other in the move proposal you instigated. —pfahlstrom 22:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done I didn't want to seem pushy, and expected more people to actually have an opinion... I think I will bring it up an WP:BLP - cohesion 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I have brought up related issues on one policy or guideline talk page or another over the past couple months, but have only ever attracted a handful of other comments. I have despaired of making an impact. —pfahlstrom 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious images
Hi Cohesion- thanks for clearing out User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images. Feel free to edit the text above to clarify what should be done there. I clear it out when I have the time, but the help is always appreciated. Staecker 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, you shouldn't have to do it all yourself, keeping up with bots is hard :) Also once you're an admin it will be nicer, you can just delete them rather than marking them all :) - cohesion 22:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Klinefelter's syndrome
Obviously I need to read up. Looks good, though. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MalcolmGin (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem, one article you might check out is Dosage compensation. That's the common view of what causes the symptoms of XXY. I didn't include it because I don't have any of that source material in front of me, but I can vouch for the fact that it's generally accepted. - cohesion 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look at it. Eventually I'll hie me to a medical library and do a lot of research. --MalcolmGin 03:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

DSCN0617.JPG deletion
I don't know why that picture is up there, but it should be deleted as soon as possible. Kingj123 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, deleting now. - cohesion 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Life Mein Kabhie Kabhiee
Thanks for fixing the Life Mein Kabhie Kabhiee pic problem I had. It took forever to figure out what was wrong, and I still didn't get it. Thanks again. Hopefully I'll get the hang of this wiki stuff sooner or later :p ImtiazAA 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion detail request - help getting them replaced
Hi, I have a number of questions regarding fair use and deletion of pictures in the series Template:U.S. Research Reactors.

Before I uploaded these, I looked absolutely everywhere I could (man! you have a lot of articles on FU) and concluded that the general policy is that fair-use can be used for existing structures but is slightly frowned upon, in fact, there was a specific tag for this. I can't remember it now, deleted stuff doesn't have history behind it as I'm discovering.

Were they deleted because I didn't give sufficient fair-use reasoning? I understand that you're doing this under a speedy deletion policy, but it also says in Non-free_content:

Images that were uploaded before 13 July 2006 may not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given seven days to comply with this policy. The image will then be deleted without further warning if corrective action has not been taken.

In summary, I would be glad to write more FU rational or take whatever corrective actions are required and within my capabilities. They were only ever intended to be used in the article of the respective article and no where else, so I don't think this would be hard. I don't remember how much I wrote before and I apologize if it was insufficient.

The rational of fair use in those instances is, as best as I understand it, that no free-licensed image exists. I've read all kinds of overly-long debates about weather this also applies to cases where a free-licensed picture could be taken. The pictures I'm looking for are:


 * Reactor core pictures
 * Reactor building pictures
 * Historical pictures of the above two

Is the proper course of action to post requests for pictures of the reactors? Is the current use of other pictures prohibited? Even after reading up on the issue, it is beyond me weather they it is or isn't. Some of the pictures still get deleted, and by multiple administrators which I'm sure will complicate the issue. These are pictures that are widely available and circulated but still non-trivial to take.

For a case of the last point, see the NCSU reactor program article, a picture of the first reactor obtained from the university archives was deleted. This exact case occurs elsewhere in Wikipedia and the tag used is:

Replaceable fair use disputed | The reactor no longer exists.

Should I be notifying the editors of that article that it will be deleted? For fair-use rational: The picture is necessary to illustrate the subject of the article, an equivalent can't be obtained by other means, and has to be given rational in every case it is used.

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I plan to contribute much more(and move ahead on this series which now has other people working on it too), which is why it is very important to me to get these questions answered.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Replying on user talk page. - cohesion 16:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses
Thank you for your speedy reply. I feel better now having communicated with an admin about this.

The picture that I would most like your guidance on is this one:

Wiki article: NCSU Reactor Program Old Wiki link: Image:NCSU_R1.jpg On the internet: From the page:

I'll admit that some of the images I uploaded were a little bit of an attempt to test the limits (while I was operating under the assumption that the building tag was valid), but this was actually not one of them. The one I thought would get deleted is still on the page actually:



Thinking so was kind of a result of looking at the building image tag and thinking that buildings were okay and other things were not. Anyway, the picture of the old building is of MUCH greater educational value to the article than these schematics. Many students at the school actually hear incorrect rumors about where it used to be, and that picture even has landmarks around it that can show very clearly where it was.

So I want to know, would the following statement work?

Fair use for NCSU Reactor Program
The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:
 * 1) The image is of low resolution.
 * 2) The image is only being used informational purposes.
 * 3) Because of the subjects historical significance, the image adds significantly to the article NCSU Reactor Program when describing the subject.
 * 4) Use with the source fully credited is believed to be consistent with the library's copyright statement.

Does this make it almost completely good to stay? Could other admins disagree? And what do you think about: I'll see about writing a similar statement and reloading the reactor core pictures, but I'm getting the impression that the pictures of buildings housing reactor buildings won't work because they could be obtained as free content with extreme difficulty. To tell you the truth, this sounds backwards to me, in that a picture of the building would be more educational towards the subject and the core would be more potentially damaging to security concerns, but oh well. A picture of the building may also in some cases be impossible to get though because it may have a security perimeter so that only staff of the program could possibly take the picture.
 * Pictures of reactor buildings
 * Pictures of reactor cores

I appreciate your help in this matter. Once I get this taken care of the articles should be able to move forward. theanphibian 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The key thing to say in the rationale is that the building no longer exists, so it would not be possible to make a free licensed replacement. That's what the main issue is. Other than that I think it's fine. This whole issue isn't really related to how educational one image would be over another, it's all related to copyright and licensing. (unfortunately, haha). Anyway, the one image that didn't get deleted was tagged as being published in the US before 1923. I'm kinda guessing that's not true, unless someone was making nuclear reactors early... Anyway, I'm not going to change it but you might want to, making up tags is something people get upset about. I think if that building doesn't exist anymore (for the main image) other admins would not disagree, and it could be used. If you need any help with the tagging etc let me know. - cohesion 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rock en español
Was there a reason why you deleted the Rock en español? I don't see any obvious reason to delete it, and you didn't provide any reason in the summary. ShadowHalo 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a broken redirect, WP:CSD. Did it cause something bad to happen? Usually no one cares at all about those. Let me know if there were bad repurcussions. - cohesion 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh. I hadn't noticed the AfD for Spanish language rock and roll, though I think it created a ton of red links through its various redirects.  I'll see about creating a stub (as opposed to a giant, indiscriminate list) in the meantime.  ShadowHalo 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I deleted a few actually, that seems familiar, and I probably wouldn't remember just one. I don't know anything about the afd though, I was just working off a list of broken redirects :) - cohesion 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi thanks for your help Cohesion. It's a while since I logged in! I have checked out another article, about Admiral Sir Charles Ogle (brother-in-law of the above Sir Charles Asgill) and I see that the Ogle entry says that it has no sources. I have changed "references" to "Sources" since I know the author of the Portsmouth Paper, Pam Moore, and her paper is the source! Please can the box at the top of the entry be removed now? it can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Ogle%2C_2nd_Baronet ---Arbil44 23:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say sure, but I'm not 100% sure what project is adding those. I have noticed them on a lot of articles lately. You may want to ask who is doing it at the Help Desk I'm probably not the best person to ask about new mainspace consensus :) - cohesion 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have another question please. On my Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet page I have an image at the end of the entry in the "Images" section. This is a photograph I took myself of that engraving which I own. The New York Public Library has a much better copy of this image and there is a link to it right by the picture. Is there any reason why I would not be allowed to copy and upload the NYPL image and remove the rather poor quality photographed image which is currently there? What are the copyright aspects to this, or the reproduction rights? Would I have to pay the NYPL to use a copy of their image. My entry regarding all this reads: "1786 engraving April 1, 1786 engraving. The New York Public Library holds a copy of an image[4] an independent copy of which is to the right. An engraving which was published on April 1, 1786, as an illustration in John Andrews’ book, History of the War with America, France, Spain, and Holland: Commencing in 1775 and Ending in 1783, 4 vols. (London: J. Fielding, 1785-86)." If it is acceptable to change the 1786 engraving to one obtained from he NYPL, would someone capable of making the change do so for me as I find the technicalities difficult? Thank you.--Arbil44 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the other image was published in the US in 1783 it is also public domain and you can use it in wikipedia without getting any permission. The appropriate tag would be PD-old, and you should still include the source. I got the image already actually, and uploaded it to commons commons:Image:Sir Charles Asgill 2nd Baronet.jpg. It is also included in the article. This is a public domain image, so you are free to use it however you want. - cohesion 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

my grandfather
Hello I've problems with a photo of my grand father, which I've taken myself See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calay01&diff=0&oldid=5164699

I've trouble on putting it on his web page (Odilon Calay), wikipedia making problems with the copyright blablabla, but it's MY grandfather and MY photo ...

I don't understand nor english nor copyright troubles. Could you solve it for me ?

Many thanks F. Calay


 * Reply on commons talk page. - cohesion 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My article (Aeropostal Flight 252)
Hey Judson how are you doing?, I'm quite new in wikipedia, and I couldn't finish my article up cuz I had problems with my internet connection for a while, I started the article but it got deleted, would it be ok if I start it again, I just need some advice when doing the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fjcs1984 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Sure, I looked at the article, I don't think I had anything to do with it's deletion did I? Anyway, there is no policy against creating articles about the same thing that was deleted except in some instances. This isn't one of those though. The article looks like it was deleted for lack of content, so I'm sure as long as you can give it enough content it will be ok. I'm not particularly active in that type of article though. You might try WikiProject Airlines or WikiProject Aircraft for more specific info. I would be able to answer most policy related questions though if you have any :) - cohesion 23:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

hi
hi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.48.46.234 (talk • contribs).


 * hi :) - cohesion 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston
Operation Stub Attack! - see WikiProject Houston, for report and mission details. Postoak 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pokeman image deletion review
You recently voted on a templates for deletion discussion on Template:PokeImageNR and several other templates. The result was for deletion. The matter is now before deletion review. Please comment if you would like, one way or the other. The users of the Pokeman Wikiproject believe that their case was not fully heard the first time the matter was up for deletion. So please review the situation if you would like. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Boston_terrier_head.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boston_terrier_head.gif, has been listed at. 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted :) - cohesion 03:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Flame seedless grapes.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Flame seedless grapes.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Flame seedless grapes.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Flame seedless grapes.jpg, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Flame seedless grapes.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted. This was an image I moved to commons a long time ago when we were keeping the categories here... :) - cohesion 16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Fuji apple.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Fuji apple.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Fuji apple.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Fuji apple.jpg, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Fuji apple.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)