User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 6

Please use this to leave me a new message:

Tsunami and seiching occurring simultaneously in a rock walled inlet.
Hi. The article I wrote is definitely not an essay. It is a article based upon data acquired from original sources as well as secondary sources, one of which is confidential. All theses sources in the article are referenced as per International Scientific Journals protocols exactly to avoid plagiarism. It is an attempt to explain why the harbour responds in the way it does and is the subject of an ongoing long term research project. The reason i wrote it as it is was to explain the locality and then why and what happened. When we look at what has happened in the harbour we have to take into the cortex the very wide geographical area that does have an impact on it. The article was written as part of the assessment for a Masters of Science part 1 (equivalent to a honours year) Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Ngatimozart (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to read more like an encyclopedia article, less like a textbook. For example, we do not use "Figure X" or such, we put captions on images using the code File name . In addition, your sources should be formatted using footnotes, which is a feature built in using special tags. A guide to create footnotes is here. Although your current method of citations is acceptable, it is often easier and more mainstream to use footnotes. Lastly, it needs a bit more context, as it would be difficult to understand for someone without much background in this field, perhaps expand the intro to explain what exactly this article is about--the expanding of seiches in the event on 28 Feb, or just in general? If we do not have an existing article about that particular event, and you are only focusing on that, you should create the main article about the tsunami on 28 Feb 2010 first, or make the article discuss expanding seiches after tsunamis in general. if you are not sure what I mean about any of this please do not hesitate to ask.  fetch  comms  ☛ 16:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some things I need to clarify here because the course I am doing requiring the writing of an article for Wikipedia is the first course in a New Zealand university to do this. It is a coastal science course so we tend to think as scientists.

The university learning centre is interested in our feed back and experiences because we are seen as a pilot course. OK with regard to the primary data issue in my article. Some of the data was taken from the Lyttelton Port Company website which streams the tide gauge and meteorological data in real time from its website. To a scientist that is primary source data, but then it is also in the public domain once it is streamed online, so one could argue that it is then a secondary source and verifiable. Also the Port company website has a library on it's website of previous data collected. With regard to the seiche data, that is available on the Mulgor Consulting Ltd website and therefore verifiable as well. Again it is in the public domain. The report written by Mulgor Consulting Ltd for the Lyttelton Port Company was only classified confidential because of a section in the report that has no bearing upon the the science. All the other references were in the public domain, peer reviewed published articles in journals or available from the organisations named. If I had left out the fact that no work had been done on tsunami and seiching in rock walled inlets then possibly this wouldn't have been classified as original research.

It appears to me that there might be a difference in terminology here and how it is applied.
 * If you use scientific data from a website that is streaming in real time data and that data is used in an article is it original research?

For the guidance of future students who will follow this path on this and subsequent courses could you please clarify how situations like this could be averted.

Thank you.Ngatimozart (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Ngatimozart
 * I think the only issue is "synthesis". The sources are all fine, and reliable. The only issue is that (please correct me if wrong) it seemed that you had used data obtained from those sources, and made conclusions or determined results from that data? That would be the original part, as you should present results already published in sources, and not create them yourself in the article. Mentioning the data itself is not original research, as long as it is not used to make a statement which is not clearly stated elsewhere in a source. Such as, I have data X and data Y, and I find that X and Y support viewpoint Z. Viewpoint Z should not be mentioned based solely on your own findings unless an external source has already found that X and Y support Z. Does that make sense? Again, if I am misunderstanding, please correct me.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably have used synthesis in that I reached a conclusion from the data presented, which as scientists we are expected to do. I will take good note of this. Much appreciated.Ngatimozart (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)ngatimozart

Thank you for keeping an eye on the Rove Formation article
I LIKE the new title. I was waaaaay too focused on having the words 'Rove Formation' be first; it didn't even occur to me to have those words later in the title!!

As you can no doubt tell, I haven't been working as consistently on the article as I could be. (I've been working on some new articles on my user page.)

Someone suggested there be more content to the lead. Do you agree? I've puzzled over how to add more relevant information. If you agree, should I be more descriptive in the second paragraph? (Right now that paragraph is more of a teaser.)

I need to make corrections from my last proofing, then recheck the categories and hyperlinks before going through a final proofing. Then, according to my list, I'm done.

With the new title my enthusiasm has been resparked; I'll work on those again.

Again, I appreciate your help and interest. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead should cover every (major) section in the article, and summarize what is in those sections. Any information at all is always welcome, so wherever you want to add it is fine. In addition, when you feel about done, think about nominating it for Good Article (GA) status. it looks like a good candidate for that so far!  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll expand the lead. Except for expanding the lead and doing a final proofing, I am done with the article. After that I'll nominate it for GA. Thanks for the encouragement.Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, again really nice article.  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

HanWay Films - Thank you
Hi, thanks for your help and support. I'll continue to add to the article, and hope it will develop. All the best. --Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, that's exciting about DYK. I'll look out to see the upshot!

--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

copyright tag for Pcb jfk.jpg ?
You posted about my image: Pcb jfk.jpg

it's an old family photo that we've had for years. what Copyright tag do I use for that? Skootb(talk)

69.126.21.207 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it needs a licensing tag and verification that the copyright holder has agreed to release it under that license. If you do not know the copyright holder or what license it was released under, it will be deleted because of this.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We don't remember who took the photo. It was either a family member or a member of the media who gave it to us decades ago.  What's the usual license tag for old family photos? I imagine there are plenty of family photos where people don't remember who took the photo.  If I have a photo and we don't remember if my grandmother or my uncle took the picture, what are we supposed to do?  Technically we don't know who took the photo, so how does that work?  All we know is that it's a family photo.  If this one isn't allowed, then I can't use any other family photos if we don't remember the exact person who took it 50+ years ago?Skootb(talk)
 * There is no such tag for "old family photo". Wikipedia has very strict copyright policies; if it was not before 1923 or made by the federal government, it will have to be deleted because the license is unknown. You can only use photos whose copyrights you own, or which have been released under a free license by their copyright holder.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So even though the New York Times has no problem with us giving them this photo, WIkipedia says we can't upload it. I guess I can't upload any photo for this page because we don't have written documentation of who took every single picture of him 50 or 60 years ago.  And his wife (who probably took most of the pictures) died 7 years ago.  (And I'm not trying to give you attitude, I just really don't know how I can upload a photo of him from the 50s or 60s when whoever took it is probably no longer alive)Skootb(talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.21.207 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, we cannot accept images with unknown copyright statuses. However, it may be likely that you have inherited the image. If you find that to be the case, you may be the copyright holder and can therefore license it. If that is not the case, the image could still be used under "fair use" under copyright law as the person it is depicting is now deceased. If you are not sure on the copyright, please tell me and I can license it under fair use for you.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, "fair use" sounds good to me. Thanks for the help! --69.126.21.207 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

← I've gone ahead and licensed it as so, but the downside is that you will need to upload a new version, that is a smaller size, around 300 pixels wide. Can that be done? Thanks,  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

done, thanks again--Skootb (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks to you as well!  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Goats
Re. Talk:William Windsor (goat)/GA1

Some more people have helped with minor copyedits and suchlike. Is there anything else that needs doing?  Chzz  ►  16:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'll give it one more read-through and it seems ready to be promoted to GA.  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, cheers; no rush, of course.


 * I was just researching other mil goats; apparently, the favourite meal of Spiggoty—a goat in the marine battalion—was lit cigarettes, which "he devoured greedily".  Chzz  ►  17:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he enjoy guiness while underage? Heh.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine a tot of rum would be in order, for a navy goat. Needs more research!  Chzz  ►  03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a wikiholic
I got a 2003 on the test which is only 3 points above normal. Boy did I think I would do better.

PS: I know this is unrelated but do you like my new or old signature better?

--Thebirdlover (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)--
 * I have no opinion on the signature, and I think that your time would be much better spent improving articles than taking the test, which really means nothing.  fetch  comms  ☛ 14:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollins College logo
Hi! Thanks for uploading the new logo for us. We were wondering if it would be possible to use the SVG instead of the JPG? While we do not want people to download the logo for reuse, we realize that it is inevitable and we would prefer that it not be distorted when that happens. Also, there is a strange distortion that occurs in the JPG files in general. We haven't figured it out yet but you'll notice that the lines of text are not entirely clean in the JPG and look much nicer in the SVG. If you could please upload the SVG instead and use the SVG logo template, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Rollins College 14:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinsnews (talk • contribs)
 * Of course, certainly. Can you just provide me with a link to the svg? Vector graphics are always preferred on Wikipedia. On one other note, I notice you use "we". Please just be careful as usernames should not represent a group/organization and accounts must be used by one person only. If that is your current situation, just make new user account (one per person only) with personal (non-group) names. Thanks!  fetch  comms  ☛ 14:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the URL for the SVG. http://r-net.rollins.edu/strategicmarketing/logos-icons/Rollins-logo.svg

Thanks again for your help.

PicsByK (Please be nice, I&#39;m a newb!!!) (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollinsnews
Most certainly it is a single-purpose account. One of their previous edits indicated that they wished to suppress verifiable information that may have painted their institution in a bad light. I will oppose any account that does this sort of editing, solely on the principles of this project. That said, it is a small thing... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't notice that edit. If so, I completely agree with you, although sometimes they do understand, hopefully this as well.  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. So sorry about that. Won't happen again. PicsByK (Please be nice, I&#39;m a newb!!!) (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I see that you're now only using this account so as long as everything is understood, don't sweat it. I'll have the image up shortly!  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done at File:Rollins-logo.svg.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks so much! PicsByK (Please be nice, I&#39;m a newb!!!) (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:2-color-vertical-rollins-logo-web-icon.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:2-color-vertical-rollins-logo-web-icon.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

pier1plantings.jpg
Hey I was trying to upload a picture for the Brooklyn Bridge Park webpage and you wrote that "Yes, site says images are copyrighted. Fair use does not apply here either." I work for the organization whose website it is and the photographer specifically told me I could post it on Wikipedia as long as she was credited. Can you tell me what else I need to provide to get it uploaded? Thanks so much, I'm obviously new at this but am trying to learn so I really appreciate it. Jumjumbum (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You must either email our OTRS team with directions on releasing permission at WP:CONSENT-- this needs to be done by the photographer or by an email to you from her which you forward to the OTRS team. Or you can ask that the site where the images are located specifically state that thid particular image is released under a free license, whichever the photographer wished (must be usable on Wikipedia, I suggest creative commons attribution sharealike license, if she is OK with that).  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait just a minute!
You are actually going to defend Codedon's response here? What where when... Which decade is this? Is this Earth? Anyways, from my previous dealings with you, you are not going to go for a NPA block of Codedon? Pinch me... I must be dreaming! (If so, this ain't no dream, it's a nightmare.) Has this account been compromised. I can agree with the jist of the response, but it appears that you are supporting uncivil personal attacks. Can you explain this please? Ham tech  person  02:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I agreed with "When people start relying on their tenure to make themselves all "high and mighty", it is patently obvious that they don't have the upper hand in a discussion" but not the rest. I meant his response to the "Note that I have much more experience than you" which I was addressing mainly. Sorry for the confusion, I will clarify there as well.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree partially with everybody! :p--mono 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tx ...
for restoring the cropped version of the Scheyer pic. I think it is better in displaying the subject of the article, as it cuts out primarily some fans we don't need to see. Quick question -- you deleted a Washington Post ref at the Northwest Airlines Flight 253‎ article as an "extra ref". It was the third -- I was just wondering why you thought that was too many. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just responding to the concerns at the FAC--I thought two refs would be fine for a non-controversial fact like the hearings starting. If that source was good, feel free to restore it.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK -- many thanks. I never know on the Islamist/terrorist articles what will end up being controversial w/our existing editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New Holland Ag
Hi, I have seen you highlighted copyright issues on images I have uploaded yesterday. I did my best, but I am quite new to Wikipedia, so I am sorry if I did not make things properly. However, I tried to improve picture usage, tag some as non-free fair use, substitute some other with product pictures already present on Wikimedia. I guess all pictures I decided not to use should be deleted, but I cannot do that, so can you take care of this?

If there is still something I can fix, please let me know, I am happy to learn.

Sara

Smagliola (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever owns the copyright for the images posted them on Flickr, right? We need a link to the Flickr page--and the license on the Flickr page MUST be Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 or Attribution-Sharealike 2.0. They cannot be "all rights reserved". If you can insert the links to those Flickr pages on each image, and they have the right license, that should be fine.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OMG, it was simpler than I thought! I got mad yesterday to fix it. I'll do this way then. Thanks. Smagliola (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, not all files fall under fair use. If it's possible to take a free photo of a tractor, then a copyrighted one cannot be used. Fair use is for things like logos, images deceased of persons, screenshots, etc. that are always copyrighted or impossible to take a photo of now. As anyone who sees a tractor of whatever type can take a picture of that model, they do not fall under the non-free criteria.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * However, if they are freely licensed on Flickr, then do not use a non-free tag, just use Template:information and specify the license and Flickr link, like the example I changed on File:SuperSteer.jpg.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, clear now, I will use this as an example. I got my job in case of a rainy Sunday :( Smagliola (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All pictures have now been corrected including Flickr URL and, yes, they are all licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike. I will wait for your further check before including them again in the article, so I am sure not to make thing 3 time :) Last but not least, can you give me direction on one more point? Two cleanup messagges appears on New_Holland_Ag, an aritcle I worked quite hard to write; so, I took the suggestion and improve the lead, but I do not understand the other clean up messagge; I checked other similar articles and I do not really see room for improvements, but of course, this is my personal opinion. Which is the correct way to deal with that? How can I understand who post this messagge and discuss with her/him? Thank you! Smagliola (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One more small request about the files--just remove the red deletion boxes now that the flickr links have been given for verification. About the article, a few things. One, remove the listing of products. Wikipedia is not a directory and our lists do not cover a listing of all the models someone offers. Two, the article needs many more sources, especially in the history section and each trademark section near the end. Ideally, all facts should be supported by a reliable independent source (news articles, books, magazines, etc.). In any case, you can remove the cleanup notices when the issues are fixed. Regards,  fetch  comms  ☛  19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Red deletetion box has been removed. I am workingon other improvements, thanks for your directions. About products, despite it's a pity (and took me ages to put it together :, I'll delete it. Just to understand, is it acceptable to make only an image gallery (see Deere_%26_Company)? Or would it be better to describe main and most important products? Thanks. Smagliola (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Image galleries of items not mentioned in the article are generally discouraged, but you can include any major product as long as it is covered by reliable sources.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. By now I will simply drop the list and take time to make good product descriptionSmagliola (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Also see response on my talkpage. mono 15:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More at my page.--mono 20:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

NastyNasty
hey, not sure how wiki works but my submission for NastyNasty had been declined due to sources, have revamped the sources page with more specific links and Charleston Post & Courrier Interview, are associated press links considered Legitimate sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.196.159 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, any news article, book, magazine, etc. that is independent of the subject is reliable.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the help,I will submit "United States involvement in the Philippines" to the Requested wiki articles section.

24.166.131.189 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Pattie_D%27Arcy_in_Waitress!_1982.jpg
I have updated the summary/description with what I think is correct non-free content rational. please let me know if this is incorrect. Thank you

Extra245 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Don't forget to add these for any copyrighted file you upload!  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Alignment
Hi Fletcher, I'm having trouble with a template that is upsetting the formatting of a page because it is aligned to the left. Could you please align it to the right? It is located here. Many thanks, Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 12:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
To whom it may concern:

Please consider this forwarded email (see below) as proof of the legitimacy of posting three photos on the Le Moyne College wikipedia site (which were deleted by someone from our site last week). The photos are: File:Campus004.jpg, File:Campus 002.jpg, and File:Pestello.jpg.

Please respond and let me know how to go about finding them again (since I no longer have copies, you deleted my only copies) and re-posting them.

Sincerely, Dolores Byrnes p.s. the permisions-en@wikimedia.org email that you sent me Mitchell.166 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)didnt work for me so I am sending this to you directly. thanks

Mitchell.166 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrections to WKAC
Here's your verification for the request for WKAC--I work there and have been trying to correct the information for weeks, but it keeps getting changed back by someone who evidently does not know what's going on here. Now I find out it's considered "vandalism" to make corrections. Please make the changes I have requested and remove the "protection".

Surphn (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a reliable source which tells that you no longer play Radio Bama. The one provided is from 2001.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Repeal Bill listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Repeal Bill. Since you had some involvement with the Great Repeal Bill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dwayne was here! talk 03:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Excirial RFA
Sorry about that, no idea what happened there. It gave me an edit conflict so I just my !vote back in. very odd--Jac 16888 Talk 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I figured it was something of the sort. I was just wondering where mine went and then I realized it was probably from an ec :)  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WKAC corrections
What do you consider verifiable?

Surphn (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Books, magazines, news articles, scientific journals, etc.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Book covers
I edited my rationale for the the book covers. I also removed the templates. Please don't use the no tag given template when there is obviously a tag given to the picture. All pictures were originally given the tag non free book cover, however, you added the template as if I had no included any tag on them. If you have problems with a specific files fair use rationale, please let me know, as it is a concern of mine.

Just let me know instead of trying to recklessly deleting legal files.

Thanks. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I used no "fair use rationale given", which there was none at the time. I did see the tag, and did not pick no copyright info given. I know my CSD criteria, and I did not pick F4. The notice even says "the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use", not "the file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status". You may wish to see Template:Book cover fur for an easier template to use which also fills out more detailed information. I do not recklessly delete pages (I cannot even delete them, I am not an admin), and I did let you know on your talk page, correct?  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You just said that I have to check my book covers, and there has always been fair use rational, I did edit it today. Anyway, could you give me specific reasons why you find the rationale inadequate?

Please reply on my talk page. Its easier for me to notice things there. Sometimes I don't get reply notifications.

If you find any other problems just let me know on my talk page, and be a little more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider them sufficient now then? Sorry for coming off so blunt. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WKAC corrections
Here's the web address: www.wkac1080.com. We have no mention of Radio Bama on the site. That's about the best I can do. When programming is dropped, it's not usually publicized--it's just done.

Surphn (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That not very verifiable, as one could argue it was just not listed somehow. If there's no source, it'll just have to be left. Wikipedia is based off verifiability, not truth, and these sort of dilemmas just happen.  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dadelogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dadelogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cians Analytics logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Cians Analytics logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Details of image criteria
Hello. You have tagged File:Joshua Sobol Ghetto 1989 lo res.jpg as needing an even lower resolution, having already been reduced from the 300 scan to 72 pixels per inch. Please point me to the criteria that specifies the required resolution. Many thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tagged it because it was 423px by 719px. Would it be possible to reduce it to about 500px tall? I usually go by px rather than dpi because it's a more direct correlation to resolution.  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I would rather follow a Wikipedia policy that the personal preferences of particular editors. 72 pixels per inches is a standard lo-res resolution, from what I can gather, the dimensions following from the size of the original object in the real world, so that seems to me to be the most appropriate, in lieu of specific guidance from the project stating otherwise. If you are aware of such criteria, please point me towards it. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well then, I've removed the tag.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WhiteSmoke
Thanks for catching the new attempt at a WhiteSmoke article. I had one CSD'd about  a year ago. WhiteSmoke software is a pure marketing scam. Based mainly on  heavy  and sophisticated spamming by  paid spammers, a fake website with fake testimonials and a fake customer support forum, they sell a product  that  does not work. All references and links to this 'company' in  Wikipedia should be deleted.--Kudpung (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga and RedOne
Oh sorry, I must be referring to the wrong person! My apologies

CharlieJS13 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, "Fetchy"
Hi. Hate to bother you, but there is a user I am slightly concerned about, the one who started the page Nitin Kumar Gupta. He uploaded this image, which is unsourced, and added it to the page James Cameron (inexplicably). I removed it from James Cameron, but now the image is floating around, and I'm not sure it deserves inclusion. As you may have guessed if you've seen my userpage, I am a little green at this stuff. I wasn't sure what to do, so I thought I'd tell you about it. Well, thanks, and sorry if this post is a little cryptic, I'd prefer that neoledidn't see it. Cheers, Efcmagnew (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All images without either a source/author/license fall under WP:CSD and I have tagged it to be deleted in a week. Barring unusual circumstances, you should generally ask the uploaded about that sort of thing. Regards,  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. Thank you for the help and have a wonderful day, Efcmagnew (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
Hi thanks for looking at my submission. Because this is a cricket club that I myself started how can I ensure that sources are reliable? What do I need to do to ensure that my submission 'The Fancy Dans' is acceptable. Thanks

Glubby01 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All articles need reliable sources, which must be independent--news articles, magazines, books, etc. are fine but not your own website, blogs, etc. There must be enough sources available to establish the club's notability, or why it deserves inclusion on Wikipedia.  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
Do these meet the criteria required?

http://www.karoricricket.org.nz/index.php?page=ResultsSenior1bb http://www.lastmanstands.com/T20_Champions_League

Glubby01 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how they make the club notable--any club can be mentioned in those types of publications. We need a source showing how this particular club stands out--have they won a major award (national/international), etc.?  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fancy Dans
http://lastmanstands.spawtz.com/SpawtzSkin/Fixtures/WorldRankings.aspx

Indicates that we are the 7th ranked side in the world out of 658

Glubby01 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with cricket--this is the 7th in the world for a fully professional team, or is it amateur, etc.?  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, is this website the championship's own site? That does not count as a third-party, independent source.  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fancy Dans
It is amateur but still a very toughly contested global competition

Glubby01 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally amateur teams are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, only professional ones.  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
perhaps you could make an exception

Glubby01 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could not. I do not determine the policies and guidelines for inclusion, at any rate. The subject is simply not notable enough, unfortunately.  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem
I added a banner image on wikipedia. What is the problem about it?Maverick16 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a copyrighted image, they can only be used in certain circumstances. Because that ad is not needed for understanding the article and offers nothing that more than a free image could offer, it should be deleted.  fetch  comms  ☛ 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just an advertisement not a copyrighted image. You can see that image everywhere in the street. By the way of this image operator is having more subscribers. The owner of this image is KKTC Telsim. So They can't be against anything on this image. If i forgot to do something. Just let me know so i can add. Maverick16 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All advertisements are copyrighted unless the company specifically says that it is not, which I find no evidence of. This images does not fall under the non free criteria unless you discuss the group's advertising within the article itself.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
What if it we are the coalition creating this? We are just trying to spread our mission to the world/trying to get the word out about our coalition, so we may be able to help more children. Please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you, SSC

Students Sharing Coalition (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as an SPA in violation of username policy. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia is not for promoting causes and you should not write about yourself.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pender Cudlip
Hey there. I noticed you redirect Pender Cudlip to the wife's page. Do you think he is not notable enough for his own article? I don't know myself but if you (and the anon as well maybe?) think so then maybe we will redirect his full name to the article as well. Same goes for the other wife on the that list with another husband (reason why these spouses got mentioned by me as to whether they need an article or not is due to the wivesd taking up their names to use as pen names).Calaka (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. I didn't realize that was her husband's name--didn't realize the pen name was just the formal name. I've no clue on his notability (although the redirect ought to be fine until his article is written, if he is notable). I'm fine redirecting their full names too, though I'm not sure what they are.  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! The anon read my note and promptly made an article! I am not sure whether he will ever make an account but if he keeps up this rate of a DYK a day, I am happy. :)Calaka (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheeseburgers From A Friend
Thanks for the help. I think you need a little break; Am I right? I would be doing a bazzilion trillion homework sheets but instead, all I would have to do is just give you a cheeseburger. Cheeseburgers promote wikilove to other wikipedians. Thanks. Munch it down! --RNelson5577 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

RNelson5577 (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cookies with Milk
Good Morning! I want to give you cookies and milk. Cookies and Milk promote Wikilove to other Wikipedians. Munch them down with milk! --RNelson5577 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)



RNelson5577 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Articles for deletion/Olivia Feschuk
Hello! Your nomination duplicated the above, so I've transferred your comment. —David Levy 02:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why?
You said that there is no source info for my image "Siyal Islands Map". Could you explain this to me? There seems to be at least some source information. Were you looking for a specific link?
 * "Own work, used public domain images from CIA", you must specify which "public domain images from CIA" were used, and provide a link to their original, to verify their public domain status. Also, please sign your posts and do not remove speedy deletion tags from your own images, as you did to File:Geckonators flag.jpeg. I added the tag back because the issue still has not been resolved.  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I will do what you said. --Radiation warning symbol.svg 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One other thing: you are not allowed to have images in your signature. You must replace it with text, like ☢.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. Just wondering - do you know why?
 * Because lots of images on talk pages slows down the page loading and server speeds.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * O. Thx--Radiation warning symbol.svg 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you always have to delete images?
Why do you always have to delete images? Wikipedia is not a e-mail system You will die in 100 more days I'm happy. Enoxod (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dutch carbine images
Thank you for your note regarding the lack of copyright tags on these images that I uploaded today. This rank newcomer to working with images would appreciate some help in rectifying that issue; as noted in the descriptions, I took the photos myself, and I'm claiming no copyright in them, but when I uploaded them the system offered me no opportunity to place a tag, and a quick glance at the only instructions I can find promises another tail-chasing exercise like what I went through a year or so back trying to determine what to do about a "needs wikification" tag somebody slapped without further comment on an article I'd written. (On that happy occasion, after a couple of hours of tracking through one Wikipedia "help" page after another, I learned that "to wikify" means "to wikify." Hip, hip, hooray.)  Ultimately, I'd like to put the images into an article about the pre-WW II Netherlands military, but how to accomplish that is also eluding me, so any practical guidance you can offer would be most appreciated. Drhoehl (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The upload page has a "Licensing:" selection box under the edit box, and it's easy to miss, so no worries there. As you are the author and claim no copyright, just edit the image page and add  to it. To add an image into a page, you would have a basic code like File name here . (The "thumb" part is necessary to create a thumbnail and show the caption.) A full guide is at WP:PIC, but you might be tired or reading them :P If you have any more questions, don't be afraid to ask me.  fetch  comms  ☛  20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the tags and even managed to get the photos where I wanted them to go. Thanks for your help! Drhoehl (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title hereMohegan Sun
Regarding the history of my photo of winning a slot machine jackpot:This photo had explicit instuctions not to use by myself and to my knowledge has not been distributed for any promotional use.

William Alonso 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "This photo had explicit instuctions not to use by myself"? Is this photo prohibited from commercial usage?  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Userpage
Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
Messages at User talk:Mono!x2 (No template)--mono 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

mono 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated permissions for three Nepal photos
I've attempted to fix problems with information and permissions on these uploaded photos:

Please inform me if I need to do anything else. Sorry, but I'm new at this. LADave (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you need to do two things: one, make sure the email from the original photographer contains the exact license of the files you uploaded (see this link for what the email should include), and forward the email with that permission to permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org. Then, please add the code  to each of the images. Make sure the email with the photographer's permission to use under the specified license shows what pictures the permission is for, for verification.  fetch  comms  ☛  20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
mono 01:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One big Fetchcomms award!
 fetch  comms  ☛ < --mono 02:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
I do not understand the comment "We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy." when two of my sources were the The Washington Post & New York Times for which I provided also pub dates. If The Washington Post & New York Times are not "reliable per the verifiability policy", please inform me: What is?!?

USAudio (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, your references did not appear because of a minor formatting error. I have now fixed that error, but you still need a few more sources to help establish his notability, and they should be cited using footnotes. Thanks,  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing excellence

 * Thanks for the star, but I think I'll hold off on the adminship. Currently, I have no real need for the tools, and I think it would be more beneficial for me to gain some more experience in various other parts of the project first. I also would like to spend more time writing rather than dealing with administrative tasks, which take up a lot of time.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

my pics
Why did you delete my rosemary anne picture? OttomanJackson (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the template on your talkpage? It said the image would be deleted (hasn't been deleted yet) because it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by   following this link.  If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  This should take care of your question.--mono 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As mono has said, the image is not yet deleted. However, all images must have a valid copyright to verify their copyright status. The image's photographer is usually the one determining its copyright, and you must provide the source. "Internet" is not a valid source; the copyright tag must be verifiable. If you do not know who took it or if you do not know the copyright status, the image will be deleted in several days.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mohegan Sun
Mohegan Sun explicit permission answer:When I was given my check by IMG I signed a waiver that declined any public articles, media from the Casino or local newspapers or.To my knowledge no one else has used or released any images.thanks Billy Lake
 * I am sorry, I do not understand. First: are you the photographer? If yes, is this image copyrighted? If you are not the photographer, what is the copyright status of this image as determined by its photographer?  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here
Oh' ,thanks for response.the photographer was a reresentative of the gaming company "IMG" when she took this photo I singed a form prohibiting any usage for promotion.This photo was after I was confirmed a legitimate winner. at the casino in Uncasville,Conn. Mohegan Sun.I am new to Wiki and trying to get a photo on my page if possible.Thanks Billy Lake 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy Lake 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the photographer must be the one who determines the copyright status, and Wikipedia does not allow noncommercial work.  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosential Article
Hi, this is Dan Herron. I wrote the article on Cosential. The feedback I received from you was to add footnotes, I have added the footnotes. Can you please tell me whether it was accepted or rejected or I need to resubmit it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cosential

Regards,

Dan Herron Dan Herron 14:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still on hold, the last few paragraphs are still lacking of sources. Can you make sure all the facts have been supported by sources?  fetch  comms  ☛ 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cosential
I have added the sources to the last paragraphs. Please review and advise.

Thanks.

Dan Herron 15:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're using the same source to back up most of the article. However, the subject of the article must have received significant coverage in multiple different reliable sources, to establish its notability.  fetch  comms  ☛ 15:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cosential
Hi, those are the only two mainstream media sources I have. Are there any other options to getting the article published? Can it be shortened or will I have to wait until the company receives additional press coverage.

Dan Herron 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you will just have to wait. All articles must establish their notability through the use of multiple sources.  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram
Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram should be moved to Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology. However the proposed title already exists as a redirect. I would request you to delete the redirect page and move the article to the proposed page, since it is the correct name of the institute as per the website, see here. Thanks! --JovianEye (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not an administrator, but you can just add db-g6 to the very top of the redirect page and it will be deleted shortly. • ɔ   ∫   →  20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought you were an admin! --JovianEye (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Kidstart article
Regarding the deletion of Kidstart article, the reason i am placing this article is due to the amount of discussions on KidStart in reputable parenting forums such as Babyworld, Babycentre, Mumsnet, Netmums, Bounty and Emma's Diary. Also when i search in google with 'kidstart' there is a number of relevant links that show Kidstart (.co.uk) NOT the Canadian company as you have suggested. Perhaps this is a google country/regional difference ?? Please try the search again, via google.co.uk.

http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=kidstart.co.uk&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=uk&hl=en&scoring=a http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kidstart&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I am happy to amend any of the text if you feel this would make the article more valid, and i appreciate your guidance in this matter.

thank you

Emmamme (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the search results were mainly of a country/regional difference. However, while I now see that these sources exist, many of them do not constitute "significant coverage" of the site, but are just small blurbs/mentions. Now, some of the sources are fine and the smaller mentions are still usable for supporting other facts, but I am still not sure how this website is by itself "notable". The best thing to do now is: go over the article to make sure that everything simply presents the facts, and continue to cite those sources to help establish the website's notability. If you can do this promptly and the notability is established, I will be glad to withdraw the deletion nomination (if there have been no comments in favor of deleting it before then, I will be able to do so). Regards,  • ɔ   ʃ   →  02:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made amendments as per your suggestions, please review and let me know if there is anything more I need to do/amend.

Many thanks Emmamme (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rosemary Anne
I found the source.

Chepetoño
Pictures for educational purposes. (!!!!!!!!!)

Your inquiry about the photos I uploaded
RE: All eight of them. Your instructions were followed and proof of permission of the copyright owner was sent to the email distro. I went back to the source on MySpace and asked them to explicitly agree to a Creative Commons license, but it is a toss up on whether that will happen since someone with zero interest in copyright law has now been asked the same question two different ways.

If you need a reference about this message, they are all over my talk page (which I saw no need to create).

Wallanon (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the copyright holder must explicitly release the image under a free license: "it can be used on Wikipedia" is not good enough. If you sent an email to permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org, you will just have to wait and see what they said.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I don't have any interest in sparring with the Wikipedian monoculture. If the policies were more obvious upfront (instead of having to drill through a tree of links) the request would have been posed in the Wikimedia way to begin with. And likely blown off. Honestly, if this community does not want people helping to build out quality content then so be it. Wallanon (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel, but copyright is one of the things Wikipedia takes very seriously.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  03:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Hollywood Sporto.jpg
Thank you for your copyright concerns with the referenced media file. I have put a fair use rationale on the media description page. If you feel the rationale provides an insufficient explanation, at least in Wikipedian terms, as to why the media is not replaceable, please let me know before taking any steps toward deletion. Jhw57 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for adding that. As the building does not exist any more, it seems satisfactory to me and I have removed the deletion notice. Thanks for letting me know,  • ɔ   ʃ   →  21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kidstart
Not sure I put this in the best place....

I have made amendments as per your suggestions, please review and let me know if there is anything more I need to do/amend.

Many thanks

Emmamme (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you add more citations with all the sources online, and help establish still why this website is notable, including any awards or other recognition, etc.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Like the new signature
avs5221(t&#124;c) 23:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Streets in St. Louis, Missouri
Greetings Fetchcomms, I need your help on something. Some of the street that I have created are nominated for Deletion. What can I do to slow down and improve the article? (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
 * My suggestion is, create a single article, sort of like Numbered Streets of St. Louis, Missouri but for the ones with regular names, and have all the individual streets listed on that. Does that seem OK?  • ɔ   ʃ   →  21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jahja Sultan
Hey! I saw you added the page for Jahja Sultan, son of Mehmed III and brother of Ahmed I. What is your source and do you have any more information about him and his dynasty? I have been unable to discover anything more about him anywhere.

201.80.24.31 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually did not create the page, but the sources are listed under "References" on the article and you can see Google Scholar results for more.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  23:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for tidying up the footnotes in the Alex Day article. They're much better. But now I have to figure out how to get the right license on the photos I used. It's a baptism by fire, but I'm learning a lot, so I might as well enjoy it, eh? You Wiki editors and admins all do so much work, and you have to take so much flak for it. You're putting me through the paces, but the truth is, you've all been a big help. I'm sure you can't tell me the answer to this, but I wish I knew how to stop thinking of the article as mine, when I know, after I've published it on Wiki, it's not mine any more. What's that? Wiki Nest Syndrome? ;> Wmoran9550 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A mild case of WP:OWN, I'd think ;) For the pictures, you wrote "Offered free to public as "Wallpaper" on author's website. Also, specific permission in correspondence from author to use any image on his website." This does not offer a specific copyright status on the images--free on the website does't mean not copyrighted, but if you have written permission from the author, you'll need to make sure it follows something like this example letter (at the very least, it must specify which license the original photographer has chosen, and the names of the files which on Wikipedia right now), and forward that to our OTRS team at permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org. Regards,  • ɔ   ʃ   →  14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. I've contacted the owner of the pics and asked him to select one or more of the free licenses that Wiki will accept. I told him I could put the proper tags on the pics provided I had his written permission to do so. I know that's correct as a matter of agency law. I hope that also follows the Wiki rules. Thanks for your help. Wmoran9550 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, once you have the permission from him, email it to permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org, and right after you do that, make sure you do two things: on each image page, add the license template (the code should be like cc-by-sa-3.0, depending on what license is chosen), AND add the code to each image page as well--this is for the people checking the permission email so it can be verified.  •  ɔ   ʃ   →  22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Sounds easy enough. Thanks again. Wmoran9550 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Florence of Worcester
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion..
..is this a well-referenced and NPOV article? It was created another time (not by me) but almost as an advertisement and was deleted (and we all know the mess about BLPs..). I have to add a few more sources and then I'd like to publish it. Can you give me your opinion? :) Cheers -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A few comments:


 * the first line should be something like "Scott Fisk (born August 27, 1974) is an American graphic designer and educator who has taught at Memphis College of Art, American Intercontinental University, and currently teaches at Samford University[1] as an Associate Professor of Graphic Design."
 * Do not use contractions ("He's" should be "He is", etc.)
 * for a references, don't add an extra space before it ("photographer [4]" should be "photographer[4]")
 * "Road Scholar"--do you mean Rhodes Scholar, or is this completely different?
 * The Notable Facts section is mostly trivia, and if you can't incorporate that into the rest of the text, just remove it.
 * the section titles/headers should only be capitalized for the first word, excepting proper nouns--"Awards and Honors" should be "Awards and honors"

Otherwise, it seems fine about NPOV, and the referencing isn't too shabby either.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You're very helpful and nice :) (and yes, I think it's Rhodes Scolar. LOL) Will try to incorporate the notable facts into the main section. Cheers -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 23:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was Road Scholar. ;) -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 16:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free reduce template added to File:RCAQuarterInchTapeCartridge.png
The RCA logos in this image are presently only about 150 x 150 px. If that is "high resolution" then I hate to think what low must look like. How small do they have to be? Jeh (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the logos are that minor, then couldn't the image fall under de minimis and still be free (if the photographer freely licensed it, that is)? But I was more thinking about the red box--would that be copyrighted as well?  • ɔ   ʃ   →  02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked. There is no copyright notice on the tape or the box that would cover the graphics on either, only a trademark notice for the RCA logo. I am the photographer and I will freely license the image. In any case there seems to be no provision in WP's image rights policies or notices for this combination of circumstances: an original photo, released to CC by the photographer, but a photo of an product or other item which may itself be covered by copyright or other IP. This is puzzling to me as this combination is extremely common, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elcaset.jpg. Anyway... How do you recommend I proceed? I could just declare the whole thing as mine and use the CC license, as seems to be done in countless product photos on WP (most of which do happen to contain logos), but that lacks rigor. Or if the box is of particular concern I can just take another without it. Jeh (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per de minimis, I would call it freely licensable. As long as the copyrighted portions are not the major focus of the image (for example, even this image, discussed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:IPad-02.jpg).  • ɔ   ʃ   →  03:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

RE
White Shadows you're breaking up 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
My apologies.... Acather96 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__