User talk:Fourthords/Archive 4

Image tagging for Image:Etherealautopsy.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Etherealautopsy.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Infoboxneeded
I see your comment on this page, but I don't see why it matters. The point of the banner is to get someone to update the page. As cited in my example, the banner is regularly ignored when on the talk page but changes are made rather quickly when placed on the article itself. The point of the banner is to help improve articles, and no improvement is being done when users don't see it. /Timneu22 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was providing information to the discussion, I'm sorry if you somehow construed an opinion from my contribution. On the subject of infoboxneeded, I've never found myself unable to add an infobox myself—thusly I've never needed to implement this template.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't considering your statement an opinion, but rather, I was commenting that it is bad practice to put a banner on the talk page if it is meant to be seen. Personally, I don't want to edit every U.S. County page that doesn't use the right infobox, so I'm happy just adding the infoboxneeded message. ;-) /Timneu22 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blueye.JPG
Why did you revert this? I thought the second version was better. 8thstar 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because you hadn't changed the licensing from the original image. The PD-self applied to the original image, not the replacement.  I don't have anything against the second image provided it is similarly free-use like the original.  If you do change back again, please update the licensing appropriately.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos "from" User:Hotshots2006
Consider umbrella-ing all of those photos, as my gut tells me that they are all copyvios.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just reported this at WP:ANI#Hotshots2006.2C_probable_image_copyvios. What do you think?  Delete them all right away?  I agree with Youngamerican; my instinct is that they're copyvio.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% sure they're imagevios, but I personally would wait another day or so to assume good faith, and then just blitz them. I'm not in any position to make any decisions about that (hence the ANI), but it's my 3¢.  Awww, you called me "diligent"; thanks!  :^D  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I just noticed that you reverted his blanking, thanks again! —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob! And yes... it doesn't hurt to wait a day.  Some of his earlier images seem OK, which is why I didn't just delete them myself at once.  Cheers, and thanks for work, Antandrus  (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's gotta be the same one. I blocked him.  Good thing I didn't click on that image at work, LOL.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries
It has been closed: it's listed as failed candaidet on it's talk page, it's been removed from the candiadte page, and it's discussion is now transcluded on the Failure log for March 2007. Tom pw (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton at AfD
Another editor has nominated Matthew Fenton for deletion. (As the nominator was an IP and unable to create the AfD itself, I created the AfD, but without endorsing it.) You may also want to talk a look at Aaron Weaver. Your comments are welcome on the relevant AfD page. --Eastmain 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

incorrect licensing
Images tagged with possibly false license info should have Wrong-license applied to them so they will be marked for review. &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually ever run into that template before, I've always just struck-through the incorrect licensing information and replaced it with no license like I did with Image:1972toppsslaton.gif. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:G_Turk2.jpg
Hi, Thx for the heads-up about the Fair Use justification question. To clarify, this image is the cover of a CD entitled Organ Echoes - Sacred Classics so I used the tag and annotated the "Summary" Section: "Low resolution Fair Use solely to illustrate the Wikipedia article about the performer's CD in question for identification and critical commentary only. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD in any way. Copies cannot be used to make illegal copies of the artwork."

Not sure what additional justification could be provided besides that, for a CD. Kindly advise.  JGHowes talk  -  03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the image isn't being used to illustrate the article Organ Echoes - Sacred Classics, it's being used to illustrate the artist's article about him. To illustrate the artist (a living person) you can only use free images, like the one further down in the same article.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone ahead and reverted the article Gordon Turk to the previous version, so this image is now orphaned and can be Speedy Deleted. Sorry for any inconvenience. I had (mistakenly) thought that mention of the CD in the text of the article sufficed for a Fair Use claim. Regards,  JGHowes talk  -  09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Benbledsoeee.jpg
Image:Benbledsoeee.jpg Hi I've tried twice to leave proper tags and sources for this image but your bot keeps saying no source given etc. I tried again and I hope Im not violating policy I do think its a fair promotional use picture. Please fix the tag or something so that bot will quit doing that,--Thegingerone 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a bot. I've reordered and added all pertinent tags. The primary problem is that (per Wikipedia policy) to illustrate a living person you can only use free images, not fair-use images.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD
The template does not represent policy, and is insufficient on its own. Each use of an image should have a detailed rationale, which would be impossible to write if the use was in a gallery. ed g2s • talk 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I realize! :^)  But shouldn't the template be amended to comply with policy?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:TheSimpleLife.png
Thank You kindly for the template message, but I am not the uploader of this image. But thanks anyway. I have edited the rationale to be detailed, is it acceptable now? feydey 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * :^) I thought only my family said "thank you kindly".  I tend to shy away from actually evaluating the content and meaning of peoples' fair-use rationales, because getting into those debates and making those judgment calls leads to general unpleasantness being directed at me.  I primarily concern myself with (1) making sure there is a rationale, and (2) that it covers all separate uses of the images.  It looks fine to me, so good deal.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MacKenzieHeartsU
I have added fair use rationale to the page and filled it in in except for resolution (I can check that later and add it), so please remove the no-rationale tag. Daniel Case 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, sure, no prob. FYI, no rationale isn't one of the tags that you cannot remove w/o approval or intervention like rfu; once you add the appropriate missing information (source, licensing, rationale) you may remove the notices yourself.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over CSD tagging
Hi. I realize you do a lot of image work, but when there are objections, you need to be willing to discuss your changes. Feel free to persuade me. If you do, I'll delete the image myself. The image is placed along a description of the famous skit; I'm not sure how your argument applies. El_C 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:I'm RickJames Bitch!.jpg? I tagged the image because it's lacking a detailed fair-use rationale explaining why it qualifies under the non-free content criteria. I'm not explicitly saying that it isn't fair-use, but that there is no rationale or argument detailing why it is.  I originally tagged the image as lacking a rationale on 2007-04-06; and following-up, tagged for speedy deletion on the 24th—well past the 7-day wait-time stipulated by fair use disputed.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but if you wished for a more elaborate rational, you could have simply asked after I provided the brief one. Anyway, it seems rather pertinent to List_of_Chappelle%27s_Show_skits as well as the mention of the skit in the article propper. It's obvious this a low-res screenshot, although I suppose I could have added that. Feel free to address any or none of that. Thank you. El_C 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image constantly being removed
"You" keep removing images from my page... I'm guessing this is some kind of bot out of control... I assume, since its on your account, you operate it so, please stop it from attacking my userpage and subpages. Thanks. D4g0thur 11:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have a bot; I've been personally removing non-free images from your userspace. Per the non-free content criteria policy, non-free (i.e. fair use) images may not be used outside of the articlespace.  As such, I've been removing them from your userspace per policy.  The crux of the matter is that you may not use these images where you have them.  I'll remove them again, and for further reading, check both the aforementioned policy, as well as User:Durin/Removal of fair use images.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want a fight here; however, if you're just going to go on a power-trip and try to back it up with rules which only exist to stop Wikimedia getting sued then I don't think we're going to get along very well. D4g0thur 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not so much, I'm just enforcing Wikipedia policy. You may disagree with it, but I won't discuss the merits of the policy, nor my opinions of such.  I'm sorry if following the rules will cause you to be unfriendly towards me, but I'm less concerned with making friends than I am making the encyclopedia.  I fully intend to remove the non-free content from your userspace again to bring it into compliance with policy; if you feel compelled to re-include it, I'll speak with an administrator on the matter.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were actually concerned with making an encyclopaedia then you would spend your time making useful contribution to Wikipedia articles rather than wasting it on pointless trivialities like removing image which may or may not be slight copyright infringements. However, I won't revert this again, simply because I don't want to get into the petty revert war that you seem so eager to start. D4g0thur 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This conversation was doubly archived, with commentary:.

Image:Virgin Killer.jpg
When there is a high likelihood that another user will just re-upload the same image, it might be more prudent to provide a fair use rationale and source then use tags to point out that such formalities are absent. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A source I can reasonably add, but I can't add a detailed fair-use rationale for images I didn't upload or include in articles. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rationales for album covers are generally uniform, albums/covers that are controversial or notable sometimes include added justification which allows their inclusion in the artist's article to accompany critical commentary. To tell you the truth, I'm just disappointed that I didn't notice this image was tagged and wasn't able to address these issues myself. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

rank insignia
You have requested some sources for military rank insignia (e.g. Image:TurkishFltAd.gif, Image:SouthKoreaFltAd.gif, Image:GermanGAdm.jpg, and Image:USAGENA.jpg). Do military rank insignia need sources? Thanks. Jecowa 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course! The IUP says: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer."  This is for verifiability, to prove that what we're claiming is true.  Without a proper source, those images could be anything (fictitious, mis-attributed, vandalism, etc.)  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Jecowa 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arthur Weasley.jpg
I changed the tags on that image on purpose, the no rationale is more descriptive of the problem, and the help text may help the uploader more. In all likelihood it will be deleted in 7 days, but may as well help the person out as much as possible. :) - cohesion 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that no rationale cannot be applied to Image:Arthur Weasley.jpg as it was uploaded before 2006-05-04; from the tag itself: "This image or media, uploaded after 4 May 2006,". Whereas no source is always applicable and not bound by any specificities in the upload date.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexington Herald-Leader
I cleaned up the article and cited some sources at Lexington Herald-Leader. I'll try to find the remainder tonight at UK's AccessWeb portal. I've also removed that slanted statement and notified the user -- who also seems to have a strong disdain towards me, judging from all of his edits on my talk page and elsewhere.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

привет товарищ
Privyet, comrade! Greetings from USA! You have tagged two propaganda posters with an obvious "source" as needing source and not given the courtesy of even notifying me of their pending deletion in my talk page. What "source" is it you are looking for on these posters whose source is the German government obviously? Please stop causing images to be deleted rather than simply asking for the tags to be clarified. What you are doing simply deletes the images with no notice to the uploader, giving them no opportunity to correct errors or dispute your tags. Fourdee 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them as lacking a source because I don't know where you got these images. I won't make an assumption as to the copyright holder without a source to provide it.  Further, under a non-free copyright tag, the image requires a detailed fair-use rationale.  You haven't provided either of these, and that's why I tagged the image. You want me to ask for clarification as opposed to simply requesting deletion, but that's what I'm doing.  If I specifically wanted the images deleted, I would tag them with ifd and list them appropriately.  As all I'm doing is noting their deficiencies and non-compliance with policies, I'm only tagging them with no source and no rationale.  Lastly, the point you didn't bring up is that you also removed the non-free reduce tagging.  Per WP:NFCCb, I'm only asking the somebody (the uploader or any available editor) reduce the resolution of the image to better comply with the non-free content criteria.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The tags specify that the image should be deleted within 7 days, so you are requesting them to be deleted. You provide no notice or opportunity for the uploader to correct the deficiency unless they have "watched" all their uploads which I had personally not been doing and I assume many other people omit to do, so they will most likely be deleted without any opportunity to correct these minor issues which are quite common to propaganda poster uploads.
 * As to the source of the digital image, it is irrelevant, as under US law a photograph of a 2d work is not copyrightable, correct? The only relevant question is who owns the "copyright" on the original work of art.  That is likely the defunct, no-longer existing organization of the the NSDAP, or the current German government.  In either case these clearly fall under the fair use criteria.
 * As to the resolution, this are a tiny fraction of the resolution of the original images, and in no way affect the "commercial" value of these images as there is none.
 * "(b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace."
 * Clearly these are not anywhere close to the original or full resolution. To me, "high resolution" for these would be 3000x2500 or such.  These are in the 512x384 to 800x600 range right?  What resolution are you looking for?
 * I don't find it hard to believe you run into angry people with your lack of the courtesy notification to talk pages and aggressive action for clearly legitimate and useful images. I would appreciate the opportunity to work with you in a constructive rather than adversarial manner. What you are doing may (likely will) cause the images to be deleted without any chance for the uploader to correct the problem, so I have to assume that's what you want to have happen, which I cannot understand. Fourdee 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, but that's what the tags do, it's not any malicious intent on my part. I'm not an evil-image-deleting-ogre, I'm just keen on the policies and the "free" mission.  I usually use a js hack that notifies the uploader simultaneously when I tag the images.  When I don't, I generally rely on  to make the notifications for me in my stead. Well, with sources I'm really more concerned with corroborating the licensing than just knowing where you personally got the image—the two generally just go hand-in-hand.  For example, sourcing the image to the "German government" isn't a RS for the licensing.  If it came from a specific book, or a German govt. website, or a reliable third-party website then that may be able to prove who the copyright holder is.  That's what the sourcing needs. There is no hard and fast rule on resolution standards, but a rule of thumb that I remember reading (on a talk page that annoyingly eludes me now) was that when viewed on the image description page, it shouldn't be any bigger if you click on it.  Does that make sense?  Or more logically, the resolution needn't be any greater than needed to convey the explicit purpose of the image's purpose.  So if you have a non-free image depicting a fictional character for that purpose, the the image doesn't need to be any larger than to convey the essentials of what that given character looks like.  Does that make any more sense?  Again, there isn't any hard and fast rule on the resolution, and having the non-free reduce tag isn't a CSD under any circumstances. Angry people?  Occasionally, but I generally don't like to be there.  I make my effort, explain myself, and help where people ask for it.  If the discussion or the circumstances degenerate from there, I generally recuse myself and move on to working on something else.  Like I said above, the courtesy notification is almost always an automated process, and those processes may have failed you. I'm happy to discuss these with you, especially because you've proven more verbose than "u smell [...] likw dog poo", which while entertaining, wasn't productive.  I'm not 100% resolute in my opinions/beliefs/interpretations, I'm willing to listen, and having proven to be more involved than "oh yeah, well revert this" I don't really intend to get into any sort of edit war over this with you.  You've made your points, and for having made the effort, I'll resign myself to knowing that you understand where I'm coming from.  Realize though, I'm not the only person who would make these same edits, and others are both more tenacious and less concerned than I am.  Feel free to say or ask more if you're so inclined, I'll give you my due replies and input; but I won't argue on these particular images with you further.  Cheers.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong PD
Hi dude, please check this out. Licensing is inconsistent (PD-self declared, but taken from GdF website, declared Public Domain, but it is not...). I saw you are working on images, so please take a look. Thanks. --Jollyroger 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd. Usually the PD-self images are most difficult because you generally need to prove that the uploader didn't make the image.  I've listed the image at WP:PUI, and considering the absent uploader, it will probably end up deleted.  No problem, glad to help.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the image help
I was unaware that US national service booking photos were clear public domain. Cheers, Lanky ( YELL ) 13:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any agency or branch of the federal government, unless other wise specifically noted, falls under PD-USGov. Glad I could help.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks again for the help! Cheers, Lanky ( YELL ) 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help re: image copyright
Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg. This has been tagged as a possible copyright issue. Can you clarify what the issue is. I am really trying to do the right thing but I don't understand what I am doing wrong. It is an original photo of Will Ferrell taken by one of the contributors to our website, so it isn't stolen from Getty, etc. I filled out all the fields in the file upload form, so I'm not sure I understand what this issue is. Your clarification/assistance is certainly appreciated. Kevin Crossman 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The image's source (http://www.the-frat-pack.com/archive-2006-2.html#091306-1) says nothing about GFDL or the Creative Commons. It does say: "Copyright © 2007 Kevdo.com. All rights reserved." which means that it is not licensed under the GFDL or CC.  If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you own the copyright to this image and want to release it under one of the above licenses?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Would you suggest I add a terms of service or something similar to the footer of my site? Related; the wiki templates for copyright are really hard to decypher if you have to edit it without using the upload form.Kevin Crossman 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, are you able to delete my failed initial upload of the image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Will-talladega.jpgKevin Crossman 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I've never been able to solely use the upload form alone; I've always had to edit the images after the fact. As for this image, ... ... ... check out Requesting copyright permission. You probably don't want to relicense all of your content, just the one image.  Those instructions are for other editors (like me) to forward an email conversation I've been having with you about relicensing your content.  But instead, you should be able to email directly and explain your relicensure without any editor intermediary.  Check it out, and lemme know if you have any questions or problems. Oh, and as for Image:Will-talladega.jpg, you can just add db-author to it for its deletion.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for all the help. I've added a CC link in my site footer now (it's probably overdue anyway). Is this acceptable?Kevin Crossman 02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason Staecker has deleted the image due to "copyright violations." I've left a note asking why.Kevin Crossman 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guys- I didn't know you were discussing this here- I've undeleted the image. I deleted it because the CC notice which you added is right next to "All rights reserved", which is inconsistent with CC. Maybe you could remove the "All rights reserved" to prevent confusion? Sorry again for butting in- I only noticed because there was a duplicate copy uploaded, which got flagged by my bot. Staecker 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about the all rights reserved. Thanks. Will change that tonight.Kevin Crossman 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help you guys out; I don't mind Staeker. Just glad you could help out. Hey Kevdo, I hate to keep raining on your parade, but the CC-BY-ND isn't compatible with Wikipedia for these purposes.  You're going to want to do CC-BY or CC-BY-SA for them to be free to use on WP.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no... that's fine. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I do feel that even the SA license goes too far in letting people do whatever they want with the image. On the file upload form, there's an option "the copyright holder gives me permission to only use this work in Wikipedia articles." Surely that's not under those terms?Kevin Crossman 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Leanne Tiernan Image
The Image has no generic tag as no generic tag exists for the type of fair use being claimed so the addition of a tag is unavaliable. The source is the bbc and is being claimed under fair use as no free alternative can be created as the person is deceased. The image is not infringing any exisrting market and is of very low creative content. Could you please advise given this new information how to proceed. Many thanks Lucy-marie 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The source and copyright information are what the image needs. Attributing the appropriate BBC source you received it from, as well as noting who actually owns the copyright to it.  I realize it's using the "generic" fairusein tag, and that's fine.  But that tag says: "You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information".  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

biography summer assessment drive
 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive! WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award. There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards,  Psych less Type  words! .

Your comment on fair use of Image:Melissa The Simpsons.jpg
Hi, I have read your response of that image.

Please excuse my English, but I am a fairly new member to Wikipedia (Well I was here a long time actually) But never have I uploaded an image. Please excuse of my error I made... I have tried reading your comment and the article of fair use but I still do not quite understand its terms, as in the detailed explainations or rationale. I refer to the article of Springfield Elementary School students my intension was to upload an image to the article, of Melissa, as it does not have an image. Before uploading, I tried referencing the fair use article, and I also take a look at the other images uploaded in the article itself, correct me if I'm wrong, but they also do not give a long detailed explainations or rationals of the use of the image for the article. All I see is their image license tag of Tv-screenshot. With that in mind, all I did was to follow the way they did for their images. As for my image, it is a Television screenshot of a character by me.

I was wondering if you know about this, before I can ask a question on the Media copyright questions page. (I know its funny asking them such a long winded question, I'll be embarrased.) Can you also tell me the differences between my image and the images in the article? (In terms of their rationale reasoning and their use) What am I actually missing or wrong in my image and between theirs?

Thanks for your kind enlightenment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someformofhuman (talk • contribs).
 * Actually, you did quite well with providing both sourcing and copyright information. But for non-free images, there has to be a "detailed fair-use rationale" on the image. What that is is an explanation of why it's important for Wikipedia to use this non-free image, and how it significantly contributes to the article and encyclopedia as a whole.  I won't make judgement as to whether this is a good image or not, or whether we should keep it ot not; but you need to make the explanation/argument or else it is striken as a frivolous copyright infringement.  Also see: Fair use rationale guideline for more elabouration and examples. As an aside, a lot of images don't have this, I know.  But they all eventually will need it, or they too will be deleted.  Don't think I'm picking on you or anything, and I don't have a grudge against you or images as a whole.  But since all non-free images need these rationales, I mark up the ones I see that are lacking.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________
 * Hi Thanks for your feedback, I have tried adding more information about the image, see if its still applicable though, Thanks!

Someformofhuman 02:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:IDF badge.gif
Hi Pd THOR: I have gone to the trouble of providing the new tags that you have requested. Please note that in the three years since I first uploaded this image, Wikipedia's policies and the related templates have changed a few times, and each time I have provided the required new rationales. I do believe that the present templates meet the needs you requested. However, you have nevertheless placed the following on my talk page: "Thanks for uploading Image:IDF badge.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page."

This makes no sense because each time another editor uses the image am I then required to know about this and to provide rationales for each time the image is used? In that case, there should be a requirement that editors be informed that each time they use any image on Wikipedia, they should contact the original uploader of an image and ask him to add reasons why the image needs to be on the page. Therefore, I can only conclude that what you are saying is WP:NONSENSE and that you are only out to hassle me for reasons I cannot imagine yet at this time. IZAK 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have come across the exact same problem; albeit, I handle it differently. I have uploaded some non-free images with specific rationales, and occasionally review them for WP:NONFREE compliance.  When I've come across instances where they have been included in other articles, I review that usage and usually end up removing the image from that article as I don't feel it meets criteria.  I've once found that the further inclusion of the given image was warranted and within criteria, and so I collaborated with the user and added a further rationale to the image. I believe the problem with Image:IDF badge.gif is that it is used far too much as a non-free image and doesn't significantly contribute to all articles it is included within.  [pause for browsing]  Actually, the problem is that the image is being used in Template:Israel Defense Forces, which is quickly remedied by WP:NFCC, and as such I have removed the image from it.  The image is now actually orphaned, which wasn't really my original intention.  Since Israel Defense Forces already has this same non-free media, I'll tag this image with orfud for the time being.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have done a great dis-service by removing the image from all those pages IN THE  MIDDLE  OF  OUR  DISCUSSION and as I was proving the right support because you have moved the goal-posts while the discussion is in place. How dare you arbitrarily remove all links to the image without first consulting with each and every editor who placed the link to that image in the article FIRST before you go ahead and do things on your own. The image was linked to many articles that WERE relevant and you are certainly not smarter or wiser than all those multiple editors who could have given their views, but no, you think you know better than the cumulative wisdom of others who know a lot more about the subject. Kindly restore the links NOW and let's see how this debate unfolds. Please deal with this at Images and media for deletion! IZAK 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be succinct, and civil: no. I made only one "arbitrary" edit with regards to removing this image: right here.  This was to remove the non-free image from a template, where its use is plainly prohibited by Wikipedia policy.  That was the only removal I made.  Once removed in compliance with policy, it turned out that was the only place it was being used, and once removed the image was orphaned.  I cannot restore the image to the template "NOW" or at any juncture while policy requires we do not. If you're unfamiliar with the functioning of templates, I can explain here.  First of all, if editors had manually and specifically inserted Image:IDF badge.gif into individual articles, this conversation would have continued along the process it was.  However, that is not what has happened here.  On 10 March 2006 when the template was transwikied from he:תבנית:צבא ההגנה לישראל,  incorporated the image under discussion into it.  This automatically put all the content of the template page (including the image) into every page which the template was transcluded.  As such, every time somebody used the template, they also were including the copyrighted image along with it.  The image wasn't intentionally placed on pages by editors, it rather hitched a ride with the template. I make no claims to being smarter, wiser, better knowing, or even louder than other editors.  However, I am familiar with several WP policies and guidelines and recognize where they need to be implemented.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image from Template:Israel Defense Forces again. Please, I don't do this to "spite you", but to bring the template into compliance with the policy.  I don't expect policy to change anytime soon, and while I'm certainly not adverse from continuing to discuss this, I'll see that it remains on the right side of the rules in the interim.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also missed this previously. I'm not an administrator; and what aspect of misery do you apply to my "miserable actions"?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please make notifications when you tag an image for deletion
Hi Pd THOR. I see that you recently tagged Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg for deletion because it did not have a fair use rationale. Thank you. This is a useful service to Wikipedia. However, it appears that you did not notify the any of the uploaders, neither the original nor the editors who subsequently altered the image. The template you used to tag the image for deletion also gives instructions on how to notify the uploader. In addition, it provides instructions on how to put notification within the articles in which the offending image is used. Doing this is helpful as it alerts many people to the problem and gives them the opportunity to fix it. I hope that you will consider doing this in the future. Thank you, GentlemanGhost 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For no source, no license, and no rationale I generally rely on to make the notifications for me when it removes the images from the article(s) containing them.  There's a delay in the notification, and IINM it sometimes misses notifications all together; but I'm comfortable with those acceptable losses.  Thank you, though.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I don't know how often OrphanBot runs, but in this case it didn't do anything. The image was deleted by a live admin after the grace period expired. Without notification, no one knew of the urgency to put up a fair use rationale. Notification of the uploader, at least, is part of the process shown at WP:IFD. I hope that you reconsider your acceptable loss policy. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After taking a look at it appears that this bot does not currently patrol images tagged with no rationale. The bot operator notes that he wants to do so in the future, but it is not currently set up for this. So for images without a fair use rationale, this bot cannot be relied upon for notification. I hope that this new information will change your mind about not notifying editors of impending speedy deletes. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, this took some time to find but I knew it existed somewhere: . Maybe the problem here is that  was talking about tags that OrphanBot applies, whereas I was asking about OrphanBot's dealing with my-applied tags.  I don't know.  Thank you though, I'll look more into it later.  Just not right now though--I'm still at work.  :^)  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've nailed it. The user page does indeed say that OrphanBot will patrol new images uploaded for problems, including no fair use rationale, but I don't think it seeks out ones that have already sneaked in. Don't worry about looking into it right now, though. Keep on your boss's good side. --GentlemanGhost 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I see below that you warned the uploader about the Freyja's Castle image. Thank you for doing that. However, I also see that you did not warn the uploader of Image:Hollowman-pic.jpg when you tagged it as having no fair use rationale. Was there a reason for that? Unless I'm missing something, OrphanBot still doesn't pick up the slack in this situation. I've posted warnings to the uploader and to the target article. --GentlemanGhost 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Freyja's_Castle.jpg
I have just added a fair use rationale template. This is the first one of these I have done. Maybe you could take a quick look and see if the wording looks right? Justin Foote 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for Image:Kxgntv5.jpg
When a website which is the source of an image goes down, we don't need to tag the image as unsourced, although we can add a note that the site was not reachable as of the last date somebody checked. In this case, I was able to find a copy of the old page at http://web.archive.org/web/20040412061925/http://glendivebroadcasting.com/ and I updated the page at Image:Kxgntv5.jpg accordingly. --Eastmain 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally wasn't familiar with web.archive.org before now, that's strangely awesome. How long is that archive available, i.e. how long will that sourcing be corroboratable?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * archive.org and the page there that I cited will (with luck) be around forever. --Eastmain 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:B00009MEB8.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V1118897526 .jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:B00009MEB8.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V1118897526 .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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bobby Loves Mangos.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bobby Loves Mangos.png. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Request
Greetings. There is a debate at Fair use review about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben Abell
Hi. Feel free to incorporate whatever you have, or replace it if you like. I wanted to get something at least minimally worthwhile online now and would return to expand it sometime in the future. Abell has taught or trained a lot of pilots and aviation meteorologists, especially while at Parks. Evolauxia 13:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of anything on pilot training and aviation meteorology; anything you can add regarding these would be awesome. My version (which will have to wait until I get home) only talks about some early life, and then basically focuses on his radio work.  I'll consolidate some of the info tonight and then tell me what you think.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for letting me know and for your work on the article. I'll let him know if he appears on the front page ;-).  He has a lot of stories talking about teaching pilots and about seeing atmospheric phenomena while at old Parks.  I don't know of any verifiable information in regard to this, mostly he taught (and still does) pilots that were taking weather courses.  He is aware of the special requirements of aviation forecasting through his work at Parks, his connection with students/colleagues, and involvement with the St. Louis Chapter of the AMS which has many active members from the 15th Operational Weather Squadron at Scott AFB.  Evolauxia 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This conversation was continued at: User_talk:Evolauxia.

No offence intended. I was talking about China. The image states in is from China. Any image from CHina in 1913 is public domain of course - I must have put in the incorrect plate -my fault -all it needed was changing. I thought you might have changed it. Sorry but if you see the amoutn of images on my talk page you'lll see why there is only so much I can deal with before I lose my patience - I'm trying to write articles!!!! Keep up the good work in tagging -it needs to be done but please try to find a solution to problems  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfree images
Feel free to list lots of similar images together using bullets with your comment at the end on Possibly unfree images - save my poor eyes! ;) Madmedea 10:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the eyesore; I have a script that makes it übereasy to tag images like that and it automatically tags the image, notifies the uploader, and lists it on WP:PUI. I'll try to be more consolidating next time I do any batch images.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:A2600 Space Invaders.png
Im not the uploader of Image:A2600 Space Invaders.png. I only touched the gamma levels of that pic. Please, send the warning to the right user, he can provide the info that wikipedia needs. I think he is User:Tyan23 but check it, im not sure. Thanks and sorry cause my english is not too good. --Martin Rizzo 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

unblock request

 * Do you have the autoblock ID number handy? I can't find the autoblock in the log.--Isotope23 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no. All I know is that I'm not individually blocked, though it appears that the actual user  was individually blocked and that seeped into my accesses.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was a hard block - I've changed it to "anon only", so see if that clears it up. Kuru  talk  00:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Images
No, I didn't take them, so I can't release them. I got them from Flickr, and they all said public, so I'm putting them to use. I hope I used the right tag. If not, could you please advise me as to which one I should use? Thanks, Ben 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ST11poster1.jpg
I have tagged Image:ST11poster1.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source found for Voyager ep
Hi, Pd THOR. I wanted to give you a heads-up that I have found a reliable secondary source which discusses the episode Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager), and have added an appropriate citation to the article. Do you think that this suffices to establish notability? If not, why not? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. The secondary sources are only sourcing that note of plot summary; not any real-world notability.  I've re-submerged myself into the discussion and have made the same argument there as well as my explanation that those references, if expandable and and pertinent, could make a sufficient claim to notability. I would like to say though that I appreciate both your attentiveness to and work for the article; as well as your willingness to come to me personally, politely, and seemingly understandingly as opposed to ... well, not.  I've tried to be clear and well-spoken in my arguments, as well as polite, and whether I came across to you that way or not, I really appreciate the reciprocation.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tend to think that the existence of citations in secondary sources is an indication of notability, and I'll formulate that argument in more detail on the AfD page. And I appreciate your appreciation of my civility. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you agree or disagree though on whether every episode of any TV series (notable or not) should have an article? "Mortal Coil" is now immensely further along than most episodic articles, Star Trek or no, and yet seeming every single episode of everything has an article despite having no claims to notability or any reliable sources.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree that not every episode of everything needs to have an article. I think there are a limited number of television series — a few dozen at most — which have attained sufficient coverage in reliable sources that every episode can and should have an article.  I think the Star Trek series are a good example, because of the massive amount of coverage they've accumulated in professional media (a category which can include professionally published fan-oriented media, btw).  Other series which (IMO) deserve episode articles are series with extensive acclaim and/or lots of cultural studies — e.g. Buffy, The West Wing, The Sopranos, The Simpsons.  But I do agree with the general principle that most individual episodes of most series aren't notable.  Most episodes of Hannah Montana were recently turned into redirects, and I think that was the right thing (although it turned out that there were a handful of notable episodes, which I think should keep their individual pages).
 * In short, don't disagree with the principle that some television episodes are notable and some aren't. I just set the notability bar a bit lower than some folks, I guess. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (P.S. Sorry I missed your reply earlier — not sure how that happened! As you can probably tell from the vandalism revert, I did put your page on my watchlist!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that Image:ST-VOY Mortal Coil.jpg had been deleted until I was reperusing the page today; I'd tagged it when I originally redirected the page, and apparently the deleting admin didn't actually check to see if the image was still orphaned. A question though, does the image and its usage meet WP:NFCC? I don't see understanding of the article being significantly increased by it, nor would its omission be detrimental to the understanding of the article. That image seems to only illustrate the plot point that "Seven of Nine and the Doctor revive Neelix after he dies"; which in and of itself doesn't need illustration. What are your thoughts? Also, don't in any way think I'm dissatisfied by the AfD closure. The article is very satisfactory now, and I again laud all the efforts you put into it. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thoroughly read Non-free content lately (actually, not since it was called Fair use), and didn't know that "significance" criterion had been added. I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not, but I guess it's in keeping with the spirit of the Foundation's licensing policy.  I'd reluctantly admit that Image:ST-VOY Mortal Coil.jpg probably doesn't meet that criterion.  A different screenshot from that episode might, though — an argument could probably be made for an image of Neelix's sister in the Great Forest (not necessarily that image, but one showing the character and the setting).  Such an argument would include references to the way the show visually depicted Neelix's journey to the afterlife, etc. — things which might "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and couldn't easily be replaced with text.


 * I actually think that some good might have come out of that AfD — not only for that particular article (which, honestly speaking, I don't care that much about, Voyager not being my favorite series) but for episode articles in general. I hope that editors who work on TV episodes will follow the example I set, showing how notability can be established for individual episodes — and I hope they'll start adding sources for episode pages that aren't under the AfD axe.  For example, even though I think that all Star Trek episodes are notable, I agree that notability should be shown with reliable sources (even though, again, my definition of what sources can establish such notability is probably broader than a lot of editors' definitions).  I'm also hoping that Jimbo will clarify his apparent change of views on the subject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alizée images
Could you please clarify why no rationale was put on this, this, and this when *all of them* already had fair use rationales? And by the way, people dont generally wathclist images, please consider notifying the uploader or editor(s) or articles they are used in when you find a problem with the images. Thanks. --soum talk 10:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, there was no specific rationale for why the images were being used in the articles in which they were. I don't understand why these images are decorating the actress' page as opposed to the articles which they are depicting--as they all appear to have one?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 12:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the template is not for that. The template is to point out lack of rationale, not to judge the validity of a rationale. --soum talk 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the template does say: "Non-free images need a rationale each time they are used in an article." (further, the non-free policy requires: "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Non-free media rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use."); those images only had a generic, non-specific rationale which made no attempt to explain which articles they were to be used in and why.  I don't intend to argue the point of appropriateness, nor was I using the template to do so; I expect as the WP:NFCC becomes more widely implemented these images will be judged duly.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 12:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasnt doubting your intention or trying to argue the images have the best of rationales. But tagging images *which have a fair use rationale* with a template that says *it lacks a rationale* is not helpful at all. Rather saying that the rationale is not valid is much better way to draw attention to the fact that it needs work. Even better if you could point out where it lacks. Thats what I was trying to point out, not dissuade you from evaluating FURs. --soum talk 12:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hayden Panettiere - dude, stop it!
Dude, stop reverting me, I don't give a damn for your edits. --Hdpnt36 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, no, okay. Further reading: WP:CIVIL.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, dude, now stop it. and your penis is small. --Hdpnt37 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I ... didn't do anything; please check again. Be that as it may, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 11:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Evanna Lynch
How is IMDB not a reliable source? It's cited all over Wikipedia. I'm going to restore the reference unless you can point me to some official policy/guide which blacklists IMDB. Thanks.  A u l a T P N 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's a combination of WP:BLP and WP:RS. First of all, IMDb is a user-contributed database, making it a inherently unreliable--akin to a wiki.  Using IMDb to cite filmographies is sufficient, although a better reference would always be preferred.  However, it should not be used to cite biographical information due to its unreliable nature.  This I was sufficiently sure of this to start with, but brought it up at WT:RS to receive corroboration as well.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)