User talk:Eeekster/Archives/2012/July

Re:Non-free rationale for File:Blue Lagoon The Awakening.jpg
I'm editing the file description to add the Fair use tags. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is 3 minutes too mucho time to wait for edit a file description to include the right permissions tags? Amitie 10g (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is and the notice gives you a week to fix the problem. You should have included a rationale at the time you did the upload. Eeekster (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The form does not provided them, for this reason I didn't add the right Non-free media use rationale tag at first time, not for bad faith. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So just fix the problem and move on. Whining at me isn't doing anybody any good. Eeekster (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just checked and the form does provide for Non-free media use rationales and is quite good at guiding one as well. Eeekster (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I just used the plain form instead of the wizard ^^U Amitie 10g (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, don't do that unless you know what you are doing, and knowing what you are doing means inserting the rationale template by hand. Eeekster (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined
I have declined your speedy deletion on Yikes. You tagged it as a test page; however, it is a wiktionary redirect. You can consider deletion per the redirects for discussion process if you feel it doesn't meet the requirements at Wikimedia sister projects. Ryan Vesey Review me!  18:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this wouldn't be eligible for deletion, if it didn't exist as a soft redirect, it should redirect to Yike. Ryan Vesey Review me!  18:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Eeekster Regarding File:North Edwards, California.png
Link to file in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_Edwards,_California.png Link to associated article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Edwards,_California

Hello! I got your message regarding File:North Edwards, California.png. Mr. Victor Foulk took the picture in 2008. He owns the full rights to the image and he gave permission to use it in any way shape or form. He sent me this permission via email. I forwarded his email to the Wikipdedia email address, but I have heard no reply from Wikipedia.

Here is the email thread between myself and Victor. He emailed me and wanted me to help him improve the North Edwards, CA page:

Victor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Edwards,_California

Home. For what it is worth. The link to Castle Butte in the first paragraph goes to a page for Montana. WRONG.


 * ) The link should be deleted.

Fix that and you'll make my day.

My response: Can you send me some pics of this place that you own all rights to???

Victor: This photo was taken from the corner of Lamel St. and Glendower Ave in North Edwards CA.

Me: Vic, do I have your permission to designate the image free work? These are the 3 options Wikipedia gives me: This is a free work. I can demonstrate that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose. This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. I have read the Wikipedia rules on Non-Free Content, and I am prepared to explain how the use of this file will meet the criteria set out there. This file doesn't fit any of the categories above. This file doesn't seem to fall into any of the classes above, or I am not certain what its status is. I found this file somewhere, but I don't really know who made it or who owns it.

Victor: It is your picture, do as you wish with it ;) !!!!

Free work.

So as you can see, he gave me permission to do whatever I wish with the image, but I still wanted to cite him as the original creator of the image.

'''Okay, I've resent the entire email thread to Wikipedia at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I'm waiting for a response with a confirmation number.''' My signature: Rdjere (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: 7/9/12 - Still no response to my email to Wikipedia. Victor has emailed them as well. Rdjere (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relax, it takes time. Eeekster (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Rocky Jones Photo Licensing
I recently uploaded 2 screenshots (File:Rocky Jones Orbit Jet (Cockpit).jpg and File:Rocky Jones Orbit Jet.jpg) for the Orbit Jet article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_Jet) -- you sent me a message saying the link provided gave no proof of a license agreement but that is incorrect. If you scroll down the page linked, under the "Licensing" section, you will find the following:
 * "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License."

Therefore, there are no copyright issues with these photos. Even if they were copyrighted, they certainly fall under fair use guidelines, as they are low resolution, not commercial and are being used for informational purposes. If a license is better, feel free to change it but they should not be deleted.

I added these comments to the files and there respective talk pages as well.

Rjcflyer@aol.com (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted warning
I have removed the warning you placed on my page as you did not place one on the other editor page and I only made two reversions the first was actually an edit to the article not a revert. The other user made three reverts and from the reading the revert policy it appears to say the warning is issued on the fourth revert. Please be more careful when chastising individuals and claiming it is the enforcement of policy when the policy is not being enforced correctly. Sport and politics (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The removal just confirms the fact you have received the warning and what the other user did is not important. You are in an edit war and you need to stop. If you do not stop, you risk being blocked. Eeekster (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have jumped in a day late and are wading in potentially making things worse when other have successfully dealt with the situation. Sport and politics (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring. Stop trying to blame me (or anyone else) for your own actions. Eeekster (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You jumped in when all the article editing had stopped and the (rather heated) discussion was taking place. Also I Only made two reversions d not four as the policy seems to state before any violation of revert rule appears to have been broken. Sport and politics (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't "jump in". I simply let you know that you had been edit warring and that you shouldn't do that. But instead of just moving on for some reason you want to debate the warning. Eeekster (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am raising this with you is because by you placing this "warning" on my page you have accomplished nothing but resentment against you an impression that Wikipedia is unwelcoming to new users (by effectively throwing rules and warnings when less over the top methods would be far more effective) and the following: Firstly you placed it only my page and not on the other users page giving off an impression (no matter if its intended or not) of a level of bias towards the other user. Secondly the discussion had already moved, so you were potentially causing something to start up again (be that your intention or not). Thirdly no rules had been broken, as the revert rule clearly states three reverts and I only undertook two and the other user had done three. Finally by coming along and placing the warning before simply asking for the conduct to stop shows a lack of sensible due process and heavy handiness on you behalf (weather you realised you would come across in that manner or not). Please be more careful next time when you decide to jump into something and start waving rules and warnings about, especially when the conduct you are complaining about is no longer occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns on the Polymer Nomenclature Decision Tree
Dear Eeekster, many thanks for catching this image concerning copyright declaration. This was most likely due to my own technical error for not declaring the copyright information at the right point while replacing an older image with a new one, so sorry for that. I should introduce myself; I'm Task Group Leader for an IUPAC team working on the production of the Brief Guide to Polymer Nomenclature. Please see http://www.iupac.org/nc/home/projects/project-db/project-details.html?tx_wfqbe_pi1%5bproject_nr%5d=2008-032-1-400 for more information. Several years ago, I received an instruction from the IUPAC President to transfer the project file to Wikipedia. The project document will shortly be published in Pure and Applied Chemistry (see http://iupac.org/publications/pac/), a journal that publishes all IUPAC recommendations. The image with the titled file name was drawn by me. Once it is published by PAC, it will carry the specific line "Publication of this document by any means is permitted on condition that it is whole and unchanged. Copyright  IUPAC 2012." Therefore, the publication of the image Figure 1, as part of the 'IUPAC Polymer Nomenclature' page is permitted. Indeed, it is the express wish of IUPAC to allow others to benefit from its work through open publishing procedures. Nevertheless, the document remains in my sandbox at present as we have yet to complete the publication procedure with PAC; therefore I shall await the all clear there before allowing the sandbox to go as far as making a full entry. This may take some weeks/months.

I hope that this explanation of the presence of Figure 1 is satisfactory in accordance with the Wiki copyright needs. Should you require more information then I'll be gal dot provide that. If you feel that I should make some changes, then I'll be grateful of your advice.

Best regards Rogerchiorns (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS just checked the PAC page, and it states, 'Use of material such as figures and tables from articles published in Pure and Applied Chemistry is permitted so long as the source of the material is properly cited. If formal permission is required, please send a request to .

Dissemination of IUPAC Recommendations and Technical Reports is encouraged and there is no objection to:

Republication or reproduction of any report or its storage and/or dissemination by electronic means. Furthermore, no formal IUPAC permission is needed on condition that an acknowledgment, with full reference to the source along with use of the copyright symbol ©, the name of IUPAC, and the year of publication, is prominently visible. Publication of a translation into another language is subject to the additional condition of prior approval from the relevant IUPAC National Adhering Organization, and requests should be addressed to the IUPAC Secretariat.'

Therefore, I have added the words Copyright [symbol for] (C) IUPAC 2012 to the tag to the image. I shall also add it to the main image. Again, many thanks for your hard work! Best regards, Rogerchiorns (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some bad news for you: Noncommercial, No Derivative Works make the license unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Eeekster, many thanks for your good advice here. I can see you point, that there might be a problem with the document not because of IUPAC, but rather because of the Wiki guidelines on this image. I hope I understand right. I'm wondering if there is a work around. Perhaps there might be two possibilites that could be considered please. First, I could redraw the diagram completely so that it is new version. It will take a while, but it is feasible. Second, I could ask IUPAC for a letter permitting reproduction. Again, that will take a while, but like in the first case, I'd rather get this right than rush through. What would be preferred please? All advice gratefully received. Sorry to trouble you with this. I'd like to get good practise right, especially as this is my first attempt at creating an article. Also, sorry if I should have created a new Section for my reply; I am learning polite methods of communicating, so apologies if incorrect behaviour. Again, many thanks for your rapid considerations. Best regards, Rogerchiorns (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Eeekster, following up on the above, I have now redrawn the image so that it should be outside of the prior copyright concerns. As I am the author I have decided to give it free public use. However, I now face the problem of trying to find the button and code to do this! Sorry about this. I'll keep trying, but meanwhile, it you can do this, or can let me know the code I should use, would be much appreciated. Also, please do check that you agree that the modifications I have made are in accordance with copyright needs. If the image needs heater variations I can do this.

Many thanks for all your help. Rogerchiorns (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

New Section
Hello, I have reversed your edit as it is a POV and if you go through the article history it has been inserted without any reliable source by an anoymous editor. We also need to consider WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are relevant, hence the removal. If you feel this information is very pertinent you are welcome to insert it in the article for that subject. This article is not suited for this purpose. Regards, Trtskr (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that a new user with only one article in his edit history is throwing around WP:NPOV. Care to reveal who your sockmaster is? Eeekster (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting you need to respond in this way. I didn't expect the personal attack. I was just explaining my revert politely. There is no need to accuse me of being a sock. The wikipedia policies are available for all users/readers to read, regardless of number of edits. Anyways I won't write you more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trtskr (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you a sockpuppet? Eeekster (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cleopatra Birrenbach
Please tell me what you would like for me to do. These photos were given by Mrs. Birrenbach herself for inclusion in the wikipedia page and included in Voice of America's interview with Mrs. Birrenbach. They are on her public Facebook page as well. Which link would you prefer to be used as evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.8.238 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of that is evidence of permission nor of Birrenbach having the rights to the images in the first place. Certainly the Life magazine cover is not some Mrs. Birrenbach can give the world permission to use. Eeekster (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How can Mrs. Birrenbach provide her consent? Through e-mail? And sincerest apologies. Not trying to cause trouble. This is the first page I've ever created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.8.238 (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am not a sockpuppet. I am bivabiva just keep forgetting to sign in. So could you at least reverse that note you made?
 * How can anybody provide "consent" to use something they don't own? Eeekster (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to her personal photos, not the Life magazine cover. I understand the issues with that one. The others she owns. She is going to upload them onto flickr and once these have been removed I will upload the ones that are fair use. Thank you for your help. Apologies for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.8.238 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added the flickr links to the photos that were personally given by Mrs. Birrenbach. May I now remove the tag at the top of the page and under the individual photos? On flickr they are licensed as: Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works. I will add that to the licensing info as well.Bivabiva (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a moment, could you please check the copyright and licensing status of the photos and if they are alright remove the tag at the top of Cleopatra Birrenbach's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Birrenbach I have removed photos as well including the one from Life magazine. I believe everything is alright now. Cheers and many thanks. Don't worry, this is the first and last page I will ever make. Sorry to have bothered you. Bivabiva (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting the images up on Flikr and then citing that as permission isn't good enough. Eeekster (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If they are her personal photos which have not appeared anywhere but on her fridge and in her photo albums, and she posts them on flickr, and wikipedia allows you to post from flickr... what is the problem? Bivabiva (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Satellite Sentinel Project
I do not see the reason for "criticism" of this particular page, since every Wikipedia subject could include "criticism" and does not, particularly since it has been proven time and again, that Satellite Sentinel Project serves a powerful purpose.66.30.140.40 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your lack of seeing a reason good cause for removing sourced content? If you really think the removal is legit, please discuss it on the article's talk page and get a consensus for the removal instead of just making unexplained edits. Eeekster (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the editor who posted the criticism section? If so, can you please explain why you did so, and why you feel it is necessary and why so many other, if not most other wiki pages do not include criticisms?  There is no big controversary about the Satellite Sentinel Project; one person expressed his pov.66.30.140.40 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and take any further discussion to the article's talk page. Eeekster (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Coifinder page
It is not a promotional page, it is a scientific information about a tool available for conflicts of interest!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izonter (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it to be promotional (especially in the first version you created) and it certainly shows no signs of notability. Eeekster (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what do i have to say to explain what is coifinder? And that there are options to help people to search conflicts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izonter (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read the notability requirements yet? Eeekster (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Uwanja  Talk to Me.   Email Me.  02:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mesriani Law Group
Hi! I'm new here in Wikipedia, and I was trying to make an article about the Mesriani Law Group. I posted the article for it, and I later found out that it's nominated for speedy deletion due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. Now I am aware of the guidelines here in this site (actually I read the important ones), but with the page deleted quickly, I just don't know what content to fill in to that page. I tried my best to be unbiased and make it more encyclopedic, but I just don't know what to do with it. Should I instead make a request for the article to be created? What are my other options? Thank you. :)

--Ivanjosephbc (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this firm even notable enough to be in an encyclopedia? Eeekster (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Trial Exhibits Inc.
Hey Eeekster, I am a little new to this. I understand the speedy deletion situation, so how would a small business like us post a neutral wiki entry? What are your suggestions? We have a good number of notable cases that we could link that would be notable enough for an encyclopedia. Any advise would be much appreciated. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsacco82 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the business isn't notable you shouldn't. Eeekster (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I read your link, I believe you will find that the company is notable as per the definition. We are working on it. I will keep it down until I have it completed. Thank you.

User talk:Nsacco82
Please remember to use a softer edit-warring notice for newcomers.Kindly,--Anderson - what's up?  20:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the standard notice for 3RR. If you don't like its tone, fix the template. Eeekster (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

use template:uw-ewsoft. Kindly,--Anderson - what's up?  21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems with The Bad Things
Hello. Concerning your contribution, The Bad Things, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://thebadthings.com/about/. As a copyright violation, The Bad Things appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. The Bad Things has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:The Bad Things and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:The Bad Things with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:The Bad Things.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hookedonwax (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Restore the Bad Things (band) music page. They are a Seattle based cabaret and jazz group with 3 albums, actively touring and recording throughout the Northwest.

Nomination of BSR Screen Recorder for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BSR Screen Recorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BSR Screen Recorder (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)