User talk:ESkog/Archive1A

Image Question
What is there is no copyright for the image?

Dvelopmentguru (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In real life
Hey,

I just saw your username on the history page of the Billy Mays WP page that I helped reinstate, and it reminded me of a former local contact of mine here in San Diego. Are you related to Erica Skog by any chance?

Keep up the good work.

Davemcarlson (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Image
Hello kog,

How do I show the image I added to the wikipedia commons?

Dvelopmentguru (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello kog,
I mistakenly gave it the same file name as the image I previously uploaded.

Can you please delete the older image I have uploaded via wikipedia.com?

And leave the image at wikimedia commons.

Let me know what you can do & thank you very much.

Dvelopmentguru (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Inquiry
Hello kog,

I used this wikipedia article's formatting Muzzy in Gondoland in order to create this article Professor Toto. And it has been selected for a speedy deletion.

Can you review the Professor Toto and point out a few flaws so I may understand what I must change or add.

Thanx,

Dvelopmentguru (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

About DMIA pictures
Why delete all the pictures i uploaded? They are all taken by me and others are from flicker.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icomparetv (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll
You are a user who responded to Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 —  talk 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI
FYI — BQZip01 —  talk 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Trinitee 57.jpg
Is my reason acceptable, now? Tarysky (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A comment has been left on the talk page. Tarysky (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A comment has been left on the talk page for you. Tarysky (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as vehicle to smear living people
You recently commented on suspect use of copyrighted material on an article I am concerned with so I am writing you with this question.

I have good reason to believe that a wikipedia user is, piece-by-piece, defacing the article in question by posting small amounts of incorrect, unreliably sourced, irrelevant and derogatory material to a living person's bio in order to express his *personal* disdain for the subject and what he believes to be the nature of the subject's work.

The poster has made comments in wikipedia discussion areas that demonstrate his negative personal bias towards this individual and indicate that he feels he is entitled to attack him and anyone else whose work involves the discussion of a range of topics he doesn't personally believe should be discussed.

This individual has also posted copyrighted material to this article that I have good reason to believe he has no right to post. The poster certainly has not demonstrated a right.

Before these recent posts, the article in question was a blandly straightforward, well documented bio of a living person. As a result of this individual's posts, it's losing its value as a reliable and useful source of information on the subject.

I understand the core premise of wikipedia to be this: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

If you can point me to resources that explain in detail what I can do to protect the integrity of wikipedia articles I'd appreciate it.

The poster has been cautioned explicilty by others to observe wikipedia guidelines, but this seems to have no effect on him.

Nolatime (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

You might want to be aware of this
Or maybe not.

BQZ has asked for and been granted an unarchiving of his wikiquette alert on the two of us. See Wikiquette_alerts. Also see User_talk:Gerardw. He's also now accusing us of gaming the system.

This is very tiresome. I'm inclined to ignore it. Nothing I can say will sway him, and would probably only fan the flames. Having others close it out may be more effective at stopping this in its tracks. I thought you should be aware though. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still stand by my assertions, but all I ever wanted was the rhetoric to be dialed back a bit. Y'all have done that and we've reached a tentative agreement, so any further pursuit seems quite petty. You guys seem to be reasonable folks and I've asked for the issue to be closed and archived. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a beer on me
This one's on me. — BQZip01 — talk 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pshaw! A light beer and half a barnstar! What an insult! Time to make a report to Wikiquette ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Image:Anti-Aging.jpg and Image:Creation of a New Adam.jpg
I am working on resolving the image permission problem with Image:Creation of a New Adam.jpg but you can delete Image:Anti-Aging.jpg since it's not worth trying to save it. --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging
Thanks for the info. I'm mistaken. So if I find an image doesn't meet standards, like missing copyright info or missing rationale, how do I tag it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasikiran 10 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Deleted
You left me a nice note about lack of copyright info on a pic I had loaded into an article.....and of course the pic would not display. I got the permission of the copyright owner, deleted the original pic and then uploaded another version of the same pic with the copyright stuff attached. The new pic STILL won't display. Help!!! H2RICK (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing my image so promptly. I'll get the hang of this yet. H2RICK (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Question
Hi ESkog, I have a questions about copyright status of political party flags and logos. I found this in Commons and I am unsure if correct copyright tag is used. Does the license to belongs to uploader as stated in the license section of the file. I believe this should be owned by the political party. Please clarify.. - Sasikiran (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Question
Hi ESkog, All the images are mine and so do not breach any copyright laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittylester (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I reviewed the images. He's also claiming rights to release the logo of the show. Highly suspect. I'd group IfD the lot and insist on presentation of credentials to OTRS. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Premiere logo
I replied to your submission of the Premiere logo to the list of files for deletion.

Files_for_deletion/2009_January_17

Ferdinand h2 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CeBIT
Hello ESkog,

I am new to Wikipedia, but I am fully authorized by Deutsche Messe AG and Hannover Fairs USA, Inc. to take images and text off the following websites: www.cebit.de, www.messe.de, www.hfusa.com, www.cebit.com.

So how come my pictures are being taken off? I have full permission. Please advise, best, moenni01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moenni01 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

CeBIT
Let me specify once more: I work for Hannover Fairs USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Deutsche Messe AG in Hannover, Germany. I am fully authorized to upload any content generated by Hannover Fairs USA, Inc. or Deutsche Messe AG. Please contact webmaster of www.hfusa.com for clarification. moenni01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moenni01 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:CeBIT
Thanks, I will sent them an e-mail with all the file names. Best, moenni01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moenni01 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This permission was received at OTRS last week and noted on the talk page of this article. They're all good. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: speedy tagging
Ok. Didnt saw that. I just saw not for encyklopedian use. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion
The many images deleted were all uploaded by the same editor, and all concern Nijmegen football club. All appear to be obvious copyright violations, most or all taken from the NEC website. In view of the large number of images, I've deleted as unsourced rather than have to waste time showing that every image is a blatant copyright violation jimfbleak (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 54 in all jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Millencolin - Kingwood cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Millencolin - Kingwood cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Vitus Barbaro hoaxer

 * The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the hoaxer's been rangeblocked for another month .  Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Final version
As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:"Sorry, but I can't support a version which would allow, in practice, the routine use of copyrighted images on articles about a season, rivalry, etc. even as a last resort."
 * I hope I can make this clearer, but any routine use of a copyrighted image is violating this guideline. I've currently only been unable to find non-free logos for a single school, so routine use would be a clear violation. I think that if you will take the time to look at the images on this page, I think you'll see that every team seems to have some sort of free logo ineligible for copyright. Quite frankly, as long as these images exist, those who wish to use non-free logos will be stuck using free logos. Those who have requested a change in the phrasing may not realize that such a change is a distinction without a difference in these cases. Thanks for your feedback. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see User_talk:Kusma for a little more discussion on the subject. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Windows 7 Action Center.png
Just to let you know, I've referred this image that you have previously edited to WP:DRV for formal review of the recent deletion of more readable versions of the image. Jheald (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

image copyright - wolfiporia extensa 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,

I think I put a copyright release on this image. I cannot find the "image description page" for it nor does wiki help offer any guidance. Is what I have done sufficient, or do I need to do something else?

thanks!

m —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

another wolfiporia extensa image question
Trappem (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skog,

Not sure if my last post went through - no confirmation from wikipedia. Not showing up in your recent topics. Who knows if you're getting this? I sure don't. Anyways....

I think I put the correct public domain opyright release info for this picture PD-self. Please confirm. Must it display the big ugly copyright box on the page? I don't see that on other pages. Wiki help files on this subject are very poor. Like, how do I access Image file description page? I'd like to add the info properly but have little guidance on what ought to be pretty simple.

thanks,

trappemTrappem (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trappem (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks Skog! trappemTrappem (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Patrickkoh (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC) MindMapper2009.png
So the company has decided to make this image freely distributable to further promote the product and benefit the consumers. Is that OK now to use in Wiki? Patrickkoh (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Flex Builder Image
The screenshot i uploaded was taken by me.. as are all the other screenshots of copyrighted software like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_Vista_Desktop.png

what's your point? screenshots of copyrighted software seem to be all over wikipedia. How do I fix the problem? I'm new to this. freq32 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos
I read that pictures from public events were able to be uploaded. kkarma 15:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems you're going to need to delete nearly all the pictures on Celebrity articles. Good luck. kkarma 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've found that you tend to get into petty fights with other users. So for now, I'm dropping this. kkarma 18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)