User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive6

Colin MacIntyre image
Hi, you recently removed an image from the Colin MacIntyre article. I uploaded the image and I'm fairly sure I added a tag, source and fair use rationale. I didn't receive any notice that it was being deleted. Can you reinstate it please. I'll add the necessary rationale etc if it wasn't there already. Cheers. Stu  ’Bout ye!  08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Howard. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Postwar Sherman Tanks
Hello. Could you tell me why the image was removed from Postwar Sherman Tanks? I couldn't tell from the comment. Thank you. Wikist 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Miri Regev
Hi, you recently removed an image I had placed on the article Miri Regev. I believe that I added to the image's description that I was using the image in fair use under the terms of the site, in addition to the fact that it was an official publicity photo from the IDF. If you check most other IDF images from the IDF site (random Ex:, , ) you will find that they are all claiming fair use because unlike the hebrew wiki, we do not yet have IDF specific fair use tags (Ex of Hebrew fair use tag ). I would appreciate if the image was reinstated. Thanks, Joshdboz 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I reiterate the comments above. Please consult me before deleting any further IDF website-related images. The IDF allows for fairuse usage [ The user may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under the law. ], so the source url is (for now) the rational. [Also, you've deleted an image that was donated to Wikipedia for lacking a fair use rational.] Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, to make sure there was no problem with where the fair use was coming from, I had pasted Believed to be "fair use" as "reasonable quoting" under the Terms of Use in the Miri Regev image after receiving a copywrite warning. Joshdboz 09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey... (Dzamija-Mosque)
I will get permission from the website (www.bosnjaci.net) as soon as possible. Just give me two days. Secondly, who is disputing it, is it just you or is there a debate on this dealing a number of users.


 * Please do not delete, I will get the permission asap

Thanks, Kseferovic 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of fair use images
Hi Howcheng, thanks for replacing Image:British_Royal_Family.jpg on my userbox page. I avoid fair use pictures in the userspace, but I missed that one. Thanks again. Blarneytherinosaur 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll also add my thanks for your help at portal:Christianity. Cheers! Brisv e  gas  10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:KKH earlyMorning.jpg
This image was personally taken by me. But I forgot to mention it in the summary. I gave the name of photographer (Kamran Ali) but forgot to declare myself as Kamran Ali. Please remove the "being considered for deletion" notice. Thanks. User:Mahak_library 1:52, 23 June 2006 (GMT)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images
Heh...yeah a couple days after doing all that I kinda found that out. I will remeber next time though! Thunderbrand 16:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Featured picture candidates/Bruno Senna
Hi Howcheng, Sorry to bother you, but I've updated the captions on the edits to make it perfectly clear which version you support. Please update your vote and state which version you support. Please use the naming located under the main caption in bold, large text. Thanks, --Fir0002 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer this question?
A user asked me the following:

I wonder if it is allowed to define a wikipedia user's group as a category of users ; my point is to relate people who share something in common, such as the follow-up of philosophic lectures.

Yours,--Lilliputian 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * nothing new. Do you know personaly smbdy who can handle such a topic ?

Cheers,--Lilliputian 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally cannot help them as I don't have a clue about the policy on this. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. &mdash; Kf4bdy talk contribs

Image Tagging for Image:MontenegroRoadMap.jpg
Te base for this map is taken from, but I made some revisions, added newly built roads, etc, because it was an obsolete mape, not up to date. So what is the license for a modified map?!

Your closing of Image:Popebenedettoencyclical.jpg IFD on Images and media for deletion/2006 June 23
Regarding your decision to keep the image, I believe that your rationale for fair use is incorrect. WP:FAIR says that it is not permissible to use "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." You said, "This qualifies as fair use in Deus Caritas Est. In this case, it is NOT being used simply to show the Pope." Even if the photo is being used not just to show the pope himself, but, rather, is being used to show him signing this document, the image is still being used to illustrate the subject of the photo. The subject, in this case, is document itself or the act of signing the document, but whatever you want to define the subject to be, the photo is being used to illustrate that subject. In any case, WP:FAIR #5 would seem to apply.

I have requested a review of this closure on. Since you closed the deletion discussion, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. BigDT 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You Killed Thunderegg!
Hello--

In the winter it seems you deleted the entry for Thunderegg (rock and roll band). I'm a fan of the group and thought I should forward you the link to their write-up in the Trouser Press (http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=thunderegg) in case you doubted the group's "legitimacy."

This year Thunderegg put out a project I haven't heard of anyone else ever doing, reason enough to be included in Wikipedia, in my opinion. It's a CD-ROM w/more than 200 songs and a thick lyric book. It's called "Open Book, The Collected Thunderegg"...it's nine hours of music in one package! What other totally indie artist has done that?

Anyhow, I think you should reconsider killing the Thunderegg article. It was useful info for the Wikimasses.

Scottross 16:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Request to change appearance date of Male' image on main page.
Hello Howcheng,

I noticed that you have created POTD subpage for Male' image to appear on main page on July 17. I was wondering if its possible to delay the image to July 26, if there isnt any guideline restricting this change, because the day coincides with the Maldivian independence day. Just thought that'd be nice. Thanks! --Oblivious 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on common.css change
With respect to this change, did you mean ? According to W3C specs,  means. Since  isn't allowed in wikicode anyway, and since you named the class , I figure you meant to set the color, not the background image. Or am I mistaken on some point? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See MediaWiki talk:Common.css. It seemed like an unopposed edit request so I fulfilled it. I didn't really examine the CSS code.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll respond there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:BB06-EVIC1.JPG]]
Hi, you deleted this image giving the reason, "The image is not necessary to understanding how the voting system works". While I don't have a problem with the reason you gave, I'd like to ask if you could have a second look at it, as other people have said that this particular image makes the part of the article relevant to it, easier to understand; especially since it's something that hasn't been used before. Thanks. -- JD [ don't talk|email ] 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you just left a message on my talk page, it's probably not too risky to leave a message here. See Fair use criteria. I don't feel that the image meets #8. I don't need to know how the voting system looks on the screen; it's adequately described in the text for me to understand it. Thus, the image ends up only serving as decoration. However, please feel free to take it to Deletion review if you disagree. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the image did enhance the article, but not "significantly", so I'm not going to contest your decision to delete the image. Thanks for getting back to me on it.  -- JD [ don't talk|email ] 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi, seeing that you allowed the Purple Frog image because it is very rare, I was hoping to be able to claim fair use on an image of a Gastric-brooding frog, both species are now "extinct" so realistically a new free image is probably not going to appear. There are quite a few images of these frogs on the internet, however none are under a free license, would it be possible to claim fair use on one of these images?--Tnarg1 2 3 4  5 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't just grab any old image off the Internet and claim "fair use." There has to be a reason why you want a specific picture. Image:Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis.jpg was taken by the person who "discovered" the species, which he released to the media specifically for species identification. If it was just some random picture of the purple frog, that would not have been proper. However, you say the frog is now extinct so perhaps if may be possible to find a picture from before 1955 -- that would be public domain according to Australian law (see Template:PD-Australia) and therefore you can just grab it and use it. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The frogs were discovered in the 1970's so there isn't any photos from before 1955. However, there are some very interesting photos of these species, if you follow this link you will see one specifically where the frog is giving oral birth. This would be the best image for wikipedia (as it is the most encyclopedic, as it demonstrates what the frogs are known for), would it have been released for media purposes seeing that it is on at least 4 websites. Would it be possible to claim fair use on that image?--Tnarg1 2 3 4  5 06:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike the purple frog image, we don't know the circumstances of the photo and its release, although we can speculate. Seeing as it's extinct, a fair use claim on the image at might fly, but I'm still a little hesitant. It might be best to just cite that page as a reference and note that a photo can be seen there.  howch  e  ng   {chat} 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield
On April 24, TripleH1976 asked you to protect the David Westerfield article because he was in an edit war with me. Which you promptly did. And it was HIS version you protected. Did you just blindly comply with his request or did you carry out an investigation? Had you investigated you would have discovered the following:

TripleH1976 is a known VANDAL: if you had looked at his Talk page you would have seen he was accused of vandalism by several different users. You yourself temporarily blocked him in February for violating the three-revert rule. And after you had protected the Westerfield article, he was given a “last warning” for vandalizing the Full House article.

So you protected the version of a known vandal. And what was he doing to the Westerfield article? He was repeatedly removing the content I was adding. In other words, he was vandalizing it. He COULD instead have added POV to the article, or to my individual edits - just the ones he didn’t like. Or he could have reworded my edits to make them (in his opinion) less POV. But he did none of that, he just removed them in their entirety.

Is that the sort of behavior Wikipedia approves? By protecting his version, you were encouraging vandalism.

I didn’t merely reinstate my version - which is what TripleH1976 was repeatedly doing with his version - I always added extra information at the same time.

Shortly before the article was protected, having made all the corrections I wanted to, and not wanting to merely indulge in TripleH1976's behavior, as an alternative method I instead added POV to his version. Someone else, 24.41.57.188, then reinstated my version, after which TripleH1976 reinstated his version WITHOUT the POV. I would argue that that was dishonest - at best, poor etiquette.

And what did my edits consist of? I was primarily correcting ERRORS in the article. And I STATED this in my summaries of my edits. As you would have seen from the History page for that article, had you carried out an investigation. So what TripleH1976 was repeatedly doing was removing corrections and reinstating an ERROR-filled version of the article. And you protected the ERROR-filled version.

I now have NO confidence in the accuracy of Wikipedia articles.

I was also, at the same time, rectifying the BIAS of the article. TripleH1976, whose knowledge of the case is poor and superficial (as you will see if you compare his contributions to the discussion page with mine, and you can even see that from my article edits which he was removing), firmly believes that Westerfield is guilty. In fact, there is much that is disturbing about the case, and I want to provide a BALANCE to the article. For example, evidence pointing away from Westerfield - including unidentified blood on the very bed the victim was abducted from - was ignored. The laboratory gave lack of time as their excuse. But the bottom line is that they were purely looking for evidence to convict him: determining the truth didn’t come into it. In a Death Penalty case that is utterly inexcusable. And TripleH1976 doesn’t want this type of thing pointed out, he dismisses it all as defense spin and my POV - even though I give my sources, many of which are prosecution witnesses, the prosecutor himself, and even the judge (as you will see from the discussion page).

After the article was protected, TripleH1976 and I engaged in a debate in the article’s discussion page. His contributions to that debate have been liberally sprinkled with personal insults and name-calling. That’s not acceptable.

But what concerns me more is that, now that the article has been unprotected (by someone other than yourself), I am going to again attempt to correct the many errors in it. And I suspect that, even though TripleH1976 has conceded in the discussion that I have made good points, in view of how emotional he gets and given his history of vandalism, he is going to again vandalize my attempts to improve the article. 196.15.168.40 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern. Please read Protection policy, from which I quote: "A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute." If you haven't been able to resolve your dispute with TripleH1976, I suggest you enter dispute resolution. You may also wish to read, The Wrong Version.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: IFD
Thanks for the tip... I was a bit confused because of the "and uploaded after May 4, 2006" thing on Images and media for deletion. Is there any difference between nrd and frn? Chaos syndrome 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it that the lack of fair use rationale on those images is not sufficient grounds for deletion then? Chaos syndrome 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. I was merely erring on the side of caution in dealing with a user who has had a bit of a record for a somewhat lax interpretation of copyright. Chaos syndrome 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Imperato
Daniel Imperato has filed with the FEC and it has been validated by sources such as the Palm Beach Post and the Sun Sentinel, major papers in the South Florida area. Since then he has been receiving local and national tv coverage most recently being on ABC News National. I found this on Google:

ABC News: The Note Futures Calendar13, 2006: Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks announce the creation of the "Independent America" party and their intentions to run on the ticket for the 2008 ... abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=140388 - Similar pages

Whoever thought that he wasn't notable before certainly can't say that now. I think his page should be put back up.

Quote marks
Regarding this edit...

Please remember that punctuation should be outside of quote marks, thus  and not. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that was WP style. I learned Turabian in high school, which always put the punctuation inside the quote marks. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement
"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], [ Phr ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

Re: NBA logos
Thanks for the tip Punctured Bicycle 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Commons
Wow, really? I didn't know that, because I saw it is a "free repository of images", and I thought that didn't have to be useful images. Thanks for telling me that. Cheers! GeorgeMoney (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images and media for deletion/2006 July 13
I haven't really kept myself informed about the ifd process. Thanks for the tip. I'll make note of it. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 11, 2006
Hi, this is regarding your comment on Nichalp's page. Can I request you to move the map as POTD for August 15 as the date is Indian independence day. -- Lost 07:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot -- Lost 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it up. It's looks ok, though I've made a small modification to the blurb. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

re POTD captions
My tweaking of the captions is a direct response to the discussion now archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 74, where people wanted the caption to be more like an actual caption in describing the picture instead of merely just copying a lead from an article. Of course, on the subject of stating the obvious, there is always a fine line between what WP:1SP says ("State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader") and what you said ("it sounds a little condescending to me"). I would rather err on the former, especially when many of the photography books that I have seen or own do indicate in their captions when a photo is an aerial view. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwanted images
Hi, when uploading some images I made several fairly small revisions to the image file (mostly to do with the bounding box) to get the images to work in thumbnail form. This has left a few previous versions hanging around, could you please delete the previous versions of Image:16CygBbOrbit.svg and Image:47UmaOrbits.svg - the current versions are fine (at least until the orbital parameters get updated again :-p) Chaos syndrome 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Chaos syndrome 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos in Template:Danish parliamentary election, 2005
Hello, Howcheng. I'm coming here to ask your advice. I recently removed the logos from Template:Danish parliamentary election, 2005 (talk) because the Wikipedia fair-use policy says that fair-use images should be used in the main article namespace only, and explicitly says they should never be used in templates. However, three different users have reverted my changes, saying that the use of these logos in this template is acceptable. I don't want to do any more unilateral reverting, so I'd like your opinion on the matter. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in this case it's OK, because the template is transcluded into articles (except WikiProject Elections and Referenda/Overview of results), so although technically the images are in the template namespace, they primarily appear in articles.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So what's an example of unacceptable use of fair-use images in templates? I'm confused. —Bkell (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, after more research, I guess I'm wrong. I will back you up on the template.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Character-artwork
I thought I would run by you since you handle a lot of (most?) of the image deletions. Can you take a look at Category:Fair use character artwork? Virtually everything in there is either mistagged or copyvio. If it is a tv screenshot of a tv character or a video game screenshot of a video game character, there are other fair use tags for that. But a heckuva lot of the stuff in there is fan art. Fan art is not fair use. That's going to be a nightmare to cleanup, though. Any thoughts? BigDT 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tulip Image
Do you happen to know the variety of tulip in your tulip image? I'm writing the caption for the Picture of the Day and I think that would be helpful. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately no. At the time when I took it I had no intention of uploading it to Wikipedia or anything of the type, it was just for personal use. I'm fairly sure there was no labelling anyway where I took it, but if there was I made no note of what it was. Unfortunately I also don't know that much about tulips to be able to classify them into species or varieties.


 * Thanks for enquiring though. I would like to find out too, as I have gone back to the tulip page a few times and wish I could caption it better there as well. --jjron 09:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

MotorsTV Logo
Hello, Howard! Would you check up on the licencing of the MotorsTV UK logo, because I am not sure of its licencing and want it validating.

re Áras image
You are completely wasting your time tagging images of Áras an Uachtaráin with a notice asking not non-fairuse images. There are none and will be done.

Áras an Uachtaráin is a restricted access site. The only images that are available are


 * official Irish state fair-use images;
 * images in the Lawrence Collection, all of which are the copyright of the National Library of Ireland;
 * newspaper images, which can only be used via fair use.
 * professional images taken for financial gain and which while potentially fair use would see a legal case if they were used;
 * images by members of the public, all of which will either be taken by people who
 * breached the security rules and sneaked in cameras, and so were taken illegally;
 * images taken by trespassers, which were definitely cannot use;
 * shots taken at the garden front which because of the vegetation around will only show a bit of the building and so will be uninformative, therefore as they add nothing in terms of information would breach fair use rules.

It is because of all of this that the President of Ireland's press office allows WP to use images from its website. All that message you posted will do is encourage people to use images by the likes of Jacqueline O'Brien that would get WP in court. The most you will find are trespassers' images of the garden front. The main entrance cannot be seen by the public except when they visit there as tourists, when taking photographs is strictly forbidden. (Even when visiting the place as a guest I was not allowed to bring a camera.) So at best your tagging is pointless, at worst it will encourage users to replace images we have been told by President's office we can use, with images that almost certainly we cannot.

Rather than see WP get into trouble for using alternative images I am going to remove your tagging. Please check first with Irish users before presuming that there must be alternative fair use images available. In many cases there by definition will not be. Those tags will just encourage newbies to start searching the internet for images and recreate the mess of illegal image use once again. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I am however seriously worried that this template will backfire. I suspect a lot of newbies will see it, and think (as a lot of people here did at the start) that all internet images are "free". Instead of curing a problem, I fear that we may have a deluge of new illegal images because of it. A lot of users when they come to WP first jump on the lets download idea without understanding. To be honest, my gut feeling is that the less mention is made of downloading new images the better. Experienced users will do it according to the rules. New users should IMHO be discouraged. This template, quite innocently, seems to be to be saying "you can download." It is something I think should be whispered around newbies until they have found their feet. We shouldn't be drawing attention to that fact.

For that reason I have proposed the template for deletion. I would however suggest an alternative. Create a graphic, maybe the letters FU in a box (made stylishly), which sits on either the left or right of a caption and which clearly marks the image as fair use. When that box is hit, it goes into the page explaining the rationale, along with an invitation to download an alternative while explaining the rules of fair use. The information would still be there, but not as in your face and enticing as this template here makes it. Users would instantly be able to tell from the FU box that it is a fair use image, and so would be encouraged to search for an alternative. It might achieve the same effect (replacement of images) in a less come, lets download approach on a page where the rationale and the information on what is free and what isn't, is explained. Any thoughts? FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image for Geography of British Columbia page
Hi; saw your changes to the map for this page and wanted to recommend using the terrain/topo one based on USGS data, as it's more "geographic" than the Regional Districts one you replaced the Atlas of Canada one with. I've been using the terrain map for locator-maps for the various mountain ranges, etc, although I've asked User:Qyd at Wikipedia Commons, who made them, to whip me up some closeups of certain areas; more on this later. I'd do the subbing of the image myself but I'm two hours late getting out the door (Wiki'ing all morning....).Skookum1 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Salad
Hi Howcheng, Sorry for the delayed response. I think Stevage has just about got it. Bread, lettuce, spring onions, cucumber, feta cheese, sun-dried tomatoes, beetroot, cherry tomatoes and some kind of olive (brown? neither green nor black?), with dressing in a jar. A sprig of parsley in the back. Also lurking in the background behind the jug of dressing is some cold meat. --Fir0002 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Auto racing
Hey, I reverted your change of the touring car image because despite the fact that the current image is fair use, the free image is of very poor quality, especially in the thumbnail form used. The free image is a very broad photo that shows mostly the track and crowd, and the single visible car is a barely legible dot. The fair use image shows the cars very close up, is focused and demonstrates the wheel-to-wheel action common in the touring car series. Thanks. FCYTravis 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Image:Dodge Caliber Picture.jpg
Hey Howcheng, Just got your message. Since, this has been taken away from the Dodge Caliber page, I have decided for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. Thanks. --The Helper S 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

about the deletion of krify on wikipedia regard
Hello, i am totally shocked to see the deletion the content on "Krify" ( krify.com ) from Wikipedia with a reason that commercial promotion.

How did it viloate ? what is good about "rediff.com" and "infosys" which you incorporated in wikipedia still ?
 * Please see WP:CORP for the inclusion criteria for companies. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

cavalry tactics pic
I took this picture from another wikipedia article. What is the beef? Can`t wikipedia keep pictures clean? I do need some pictures and most here is 19th-20th century ahistoric s***. I try to make the best of the little useful pictures I find on other wiki articles and then things get deleted. Please DO tell me in detail what is going wrong here. This is the second picture that gets deleted. Wandalstouring 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not User:Howcheng, but if you are referring to Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg, the concern is that this is NOT a free picture, but, rather, a modern work of art that is only available under fair use. Thus, it cannot be used as general decoration in an article, but only for commentary about the painting itself. BigDT 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion script
I have been using your script ... I love it ... it makes things go MUCH more efficiently. I think I found a ... umm ... "feature", though. When User:Animé Dan should have been warned, User talk:AnimÃ© Dan was warned instead. (After you take a look at User talk:AnimÃ© Dan to confirm the bug/feature, please delete that page G7 as I'm sure no such person exists.) BigDT 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... this seems to be a bug specific to IE. You might see the same thing happening with image names that contain Unicode characters too. I'm a little too tired to figure it out right now, so perhaps this might be a good time for you to switch to a better browser like Firefox. :)  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK this is now fixed for IE.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That script has made me much more efficient.  It lets me make more work for administrators so I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. ;)  BigDT 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may have accidentally left an alert(uploader); in there. BigDT 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did. It's gone now.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Flagg's Death
First off, a general consensus wasn't reached in the deletion, with only one person wanting to delete it. The majority of the Randall Flagg talk group were in favor of keeping it.

Furthermore, the picture in question specifically illustrate[s] relevant points or sections within the text as it displays what happened in the book and is very important to Flagg's character as a whole. It also fits in every single of the other requirements.

Can we compromise and keep it out of Mordred's article but keep it in Flagg's? Its very important to the article and has been there for a while. The only reason why it was up for deletion was because someone foolishly ignored the spoiler warning and wanted to delete it because it spoiled something for him.

Also, other character articles often show the death scenes of their respective characters if there is one.--CyberGhostface 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, policy trumps consensus every time. If you wish, you could re-upload it and post an inquiry at Fair use review to have some more input.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please not remove it until I get some more input from the review board then?--CyberGhostface 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
Howcheng, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

File Image Woody.jpg
Hi, I received your message. That wasn't my file upload. I just reverted back to the original photo after some vandalism. If you go to the image's page you'll see the history. The original uploader might be able to specify the photos copyright status. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help.--Sam Harmon 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you photo-edit Maya glyphs shot??
I noticed your recent edit of the Siberian Tiger photo on Featured Pictures. Do you know any way to edit this photo of Maya glyphs? When this photo appears on a page, the details are IMHO murky and the raised surface of the glyphs don't stand out.

Also, I am wondering if there's any way to highlight the inscribed glyphs on this photo of the Epi-Olmec script?? It would be nice if the glyphs just jumped off the page, even at the cost of doctoring the photo.

If you are not able (for whatever reason) to work with this, perhaps you could point me to someone who could.

In any case, thanks, Madman 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the removal of Image:The Arms of Sir Robert Bell (Knight) Revealed by an Armoured Scroll bearing a Crest with the Holy Grail copy.png
User Howcheng, you have recently deleted images that appear on several articles, Holy Grail, Phoenix, and Sir Robert Bell. I kindly request that you furnish me with a comprehensive rationallee as to why you have deleted this image. Further, it would be appreciated if you would cite Wickipedia Policy for this, and any other images that have been deleted by you, for the same rationalle (s). Thank you. User:Wales 19:05, 09 August 2006
 * User:Carnildo already cited the relevant policy to you on Images and media for deletion/2006 August 3. The image I removed from the articles was identical to one of the images nominated for deletion. Any policy applicable to those applies equally to the duplicate image.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use replaced
I just wanted to let you know that you can use if you find a fair use image that has been supersceded by a free one. Hbdragon88 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the IFD process is faster (and using my script, not tedious at all). Also, or-fu2 doesn't sort the images into dated subcategories like {{subst:orfud}} does.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm wrong, I guess {{subst:or-fu-re}} does the trick.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that script is pretty nifty. I'm going to have to try that out - IFD is quite a tedious process; I have flip back and forth from tab to tab to copy the uploader's and image name, so forth. THanks for the link! Hbdragon88 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Script is fun...nominated a few pictures without breaking a sweat. Hbdragon88

Image:JTrohman.jpg
Hello, it appears that the flickr account owner recently changed the license. I assure you that when it was uploaded (the photo), the license was under the SA 2.0 license. Thanks. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess I'll look into that while I attempt to find another free source picture for the subject. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, found a new image. Uploaded under the same filename and the link to the picture on flickr is http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessicaelliott/141609863/

Would it be possible for you to verify the license in some way, in case of a similar incident? Thanks! --DieHard2k5 | Talk 16:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Modine Trivia?
Hello: It looks like you added a "Trivia" section to the Matthew Modine article. The one item that is posted is, "Modine is a first cousin of baseball great George Brett". This is not true and I'm sure it cannot be verified. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia and am not sure what I can do about it, so I'm asking you to help. Can you remove it?

By the way, he is the NEPHEW of former Broadway actress Nola Fairbanks. Thanks! --Jenny 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out where I got this information, because it seems like I added it to both the Matthew Modine and George Brett articles, but considering I'm not a fan of either, I don't see why I would be making it up. Most likely, I saw it in the IMDB biography of Matthew Modine. That makes the most sense, because I was trying to put people in subcategories of Category:People from California. I guess I'll just remove it from both articles.  howch  e  ng   {chat} 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WNBA pic
Hi, I am looking at the 3 wnba player pics listed for deletion. DawnStaley2006.jpg, KatieSmith2006.jpg, TinaThompson2006.jpg. And I did see your message regarding "stealing". Those pictures were released by the league media to help promote the league and players. I am not mis-using them in any way shape or form. You can even find them on 3rd party sites like yahoo.com. I don't understand wikipedia's policy on allowing pictures of athletes. There is no wikipedia guidelines in terms of what pictures are allowed from what source. What magazine, tv station or websites of athlete pictures are re-usable? Because there is no way I can take pictures of the athletes myself. Is there any licensing in the wording that can be used to allow the pics to stay? Please help. Starze 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at something?
Take a look at and. There's some overlap in contributions, for example,, and they both like the edit description "Released under GNU FDL as part of Wikipedia", so I would say it's pretty much certain they are either the same person (or roommates or family members or whatever). Several days ago, I put several of User:Wd40gdw's CV images on IFD. But take a look at User:Troyboysc's contributions - a LOT (virtually all) of them sure don't look like free images. Image:Usctrackduanesolomon.jpg, for example, is from. A lot of them he claims are "self made", but some like this Image:Usc victory bell.gif are extremely doubtful. If you check out User talk:Troyboysc, the response to questions is less than reassuring. The comment I left several weeks ago has not been answered. I hate to keep nominating images en masse, but can you see any reason that I shouldn't list every single one of these images on IFD or PUI? BigDT 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. I say go ahead. If something is GFDL, we need to either have proof or at least a reasonable belief that it's so.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. They are all on Images and media for deletion/2006 August 18.  I went through them in order and found the actual original sources for about the first ten or so in the hopes that this would provide sufficient evidence that they are likely all CV.  BigDT 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Imperato
is his page back up yet? and did anyone see him broadcast live from C-SPAN2 on wednesday.

Unspecified source for Image:BelmontCountyCourthouse StClairsvilleOH.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BelmontCountyCourthouse StClairsvilleOH.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stubbleboy 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review the status of this image, per here and the link you provided for the picture does lead to the correct page. Thanks!  Stubbleboy 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford Edge image
I reverted your replacement of a fair use image of the Ford Edge with a "free" one - and this is why: The "free" image is unfocused and very badly composed. The doors are open wide - blocking a proper view of the vehicle. You cannot make out anything in terms of "proportions" of the vehicle, or how it "stands". The "free" image is extremely poor - by far inferior to the "fair use" one from the press package, as provided freely by Ford Motor Company. While I certainly respect your efforts to replace "fair use" with "free images", substituting an excellent "allowable" image with extremely poor "more allowable" image is not what the Wikipedia policy intends. Just because some horribly amateurish "free" image is uploaded to the Wikipedia by a well meaning User does not mean the rest of us are to be forced to look at it and allow it to replace all the better pictures. We need a high quality image of the Ford Edge, not a bad one. The car comes out soon - perhaps then some higher quality free images will become available. Until then - please reconsider your actions, and please be much more selective in the images you add and delete to articles. Thanks! --T-dot 09:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. The policy's goal is to make sure that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that can be used by anyone for any purpose. Fair use images detract us from that goal. We do NOT need "high quality" images -- we need free ones.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield
Hi Howcheng. Can you please take a look at a new section, in the David Westerfield article, that an anonymous user added, called "Guilty?". In my opinion it is highly POV. I've dealt with this individual constantly and they continually use the article as their soapbox, because they think Westerfield was wrongfully convicted. Do you think the section is ok? I'd remove the section myself, however, this person will just reinsert it later. Thanks. TripleH1976 18:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TripleH1976 has once again VANDALIZED this article by removing my content in its entirety. I expect you to take prompt and effective action.196.15.168.40 04:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not consider his actions "vandalism". As I explained on Talk:David Westerfield, that whole section was just too much. Wikipedia is not the "David Westerfield was innocent" web site. Describe how others think he is innocent, but do not make the argument yourself. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TripleH1976 didn’t shorten my edit or remove the primary sources: he removed the ENTIRE edit. So that’s going BEYOND your recommendations and therefore constitutes VANDALISM.  My edit included a 2-line addition to the External links section, with links to OTHER people’s reasons for believing Westerfield innocent (which you APPROVE of).  Yet TripleH1976 removed that as well.  Are you also now defending that?


 * More fundamentally, neither you nor he has disputed the TRUTH and ACCURACY of what I wrote (which would be really difficult to do, given my MANY supporting references). I gave close to a HUNDRED reasons indicating that an INNOCENT man is going to be executed, and you respond with TECHNICALITIES!!  (length, primary sources)  Where’s your OUTRAGE?  Where’s your HUMANITY?  I would add that my addition does NOT state that Westerfield is innocent, it merely provides information that adds a BALANCE to an unbalanced article, so that it conforms to Wikipedia’s policy of NEUTRALITY.  (So you should be THANKING me.)  Contrary to TripleH1976's agenda, it is NOT Wikipedia's job to argue that he was rightfully convicted.


 * The existing article is RIDDLED with errors, and has NO references at all. It is a DISGRACE to Wikipedia.  I tried REPEATEDLY, in March and April, to correct it, but TripleH1976 REPEATEDLY removed my improvements (see my July 11 comments in Section 19, above).  He wants this to be the "David Westerfield is guilty" web site.  So this time I tried a completely different method to improve it - adding a separate section, while leaving the existing mess as is - in the hope that this would not be vandalized.  My hope was in vain: perhaps he found the contrast in quality embarrassing, and feared that readers would draw their own conclusions.196.15.168.40 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 196.15.168.40 nobody has to be thankful for anything from you. You are just a person, who is pissed off because their relative is on death row in San Quentin.  I guess I would be pissed off too, but coming to wikipedia and using it as a mouth piece for the defense is rude and wrong.  You have no right to do that.  In no shape, way, or form is the article a "David Westerfield is guilty" web site.  But facts are facts and he is convicted.  You can rehash the defense's case, all you want, and it will still be a fact; he is convicted.  That's all the article says.  You complain that it is unbalanced.  It is balanced, in fact I balanced it for ya.  Neither myself or Howcheng need to dispute or challenge your position, because wikipedia is not the courtroom.  The case will not be re-tryed here, and that's what you've been wanting to do since the beginning.  TripleH1976 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * “since the beginning”? My very first edit (March 21) was a correction to the date the body was found: how does that retry the case?  And you thanked me for that.  What I have been wanting since the beginning is the TRUTH.  You still haven’t disproved anything I have added.  This means that the information in my “Guilty?” section is correct.  Your objection to all that is merely that it points to Westerfield’s innocence.  As I have previously stated, I am NOT a relative of his.  It does you no credit that you resort to such unfounded (and irrelevant) accusations in an attempt to shore up your standpoint.  As previously pointed out by Currious1, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is an information resource.  It therefore has to provide information about the case, and that INCLUDES evidence pointing to INNOCENCE, whether you like it or not, and whether you consider yourself the owner of the David Westerfield and Danielle van Dam articles or not.  This is NOT the same as being a mouthpiece for the defense, NOR is it the same as retrying the case: it’s simply what authoritative reference works do, which is what Wikipedia presumably aspires to (but presently falls far short of).  The article is almost two pages long, so it includes far more than just the bald statement that Westerfield was convicted.  Please justify your denial that “the article [is] a "David Westerfield is guilty" web site”, by quoting statements from it pointing to his innocence.  By “balancing the article for me”, I presume you are referring to the fact that you sort-of added several pieces of information I gave (for which I am grateful).  But these were chosen or worded in such a way that I doubt they would cause any reader to question his guilt.  For example, he “claimed” that the police denied him a lawyer: they ADMITTED it!196.15.168.40 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Triple H1976 - You are just a person, who is pissed off because their relative is on death row in San Quentin. You better be able to put your money where your mouth is with this statement. You are an embarrassement to the honest posters on Wikipedia. You have accused me of being a relative also and most recently even being one and same of 196.15.168.40. I am honestly perplexed that you are continually allowed to make the comments you have without sourcing such. FreedomRings 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK people, we do not need to be arguing about this on my talk page. 196.15.168.40 is correct in that Wikipedia is not the "David Westerfield is guilty" site either. What Wikipedia is, is the "This is who David Westerfield is. This is what he was accused of and convicted of doing. These are some of the controversies around his conviction." web site. You are free to add information about controversy surrounding his conviction, but you cannot make the argument yourself. The article should be like a newspaper article, NOT like an essay. Capiche? Now stop arguing and get to work, dammit.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies Howcheng. FreedomRings 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to howcheng: Your reprimand only came after one of TripleH1976's victims responded to his abuse, not after TripleH1976's insults. That could be a coincidence, you might not have accessed your talk page in between. But, more seriously, you have made no criticism of his contributions to the Westerfield article, but have supported his removal of my contributions, even though my contributions are far superior in quality to his. You can’t blame me for thinking there is a double standard here, that you are more tolerant of him, and I suspect it’s because you know he’s a loose cannon and don’t want to upset him.

I’d have thought an encyclopedia article SHOULD read like an essay and NOT a newspaper article. In fact, I thought that was what Prueda29 meant when they said (January 21) the very similar Danielle van Dam article “does not read like an encyclopedic article” (which TripleH1976, in typical TripleH1976 fashion, RUDELY rejected).196.15.168.40 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I only came to check out your addition to the article at the behest of TripleH1976. I don't monitor the David Westerfield article, so I have no comment on the rest of it. I know nothing about TripleH1976 except that I blocked him once for a 3RR violation. As for encyclopedia articles reading like essays, well, the only thing I can say is that you need to learn what an encyclopedia is. I suggest you start with reading Five pillars to learn more about what we are trying to accomplish here.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I reported to you in JULY that TripleH1976 was a serial vandal, that he resorts to personal insult and that the Westerfield article was riddled with errors, so you can’t plead ignorance now. And I warned you about this because I KNEW that there would be trouble as soon as anyone DARED try to improve the recently unprotected article.  Which is EXACTLY what happened.


 * Where does Five pillars say it should not read like an ESSAY? The fact that pillar number 1 explicitly states that Wikipedia is NOT a NEWSPAPER suggests strongly that it should not READ like one.  As this trial was broadcast in its entirety, live to the nation, and every word in the transcripts was heard by probably MILLIONS of people, it is debatable whether that information can be considered “original research” (first pillar): it’s PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  Where does Five pillars (or anything else) say that TripleH1976 is the owner/controller of this or any other article?  (that’s a violation of the third pillar)  Where does it say that he can delete anything he doesn’t like?  (especially something which makes the article neutral (that’s the second pillar))  Where does it exempt him from the requirement to cite his sources?  (that’s also the second pillar)  Where does it grant him permission to make personal attacks?  (that’s the fourth pillar)  His user talk page was filled with criticism of him, but that has all now disappeared (albeit only archived), just like everything else he doesn’t like, making him appear like the angel that he most definitely is NOT.  His behavior is a DISGRACE to Wikipedia.  He violates FOUR of the five pillars.  The only one he DOESN’T violate is the fifth one: “perfection isn’t required”.  He apparently tried really hard NOT to violate that one!  It would be difficult to find a more imperfect article.196.15.168.40 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have a misunderstanding of the word essay. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" means that Wikipedia does not cover all breaking news; it does not mean that Wikipedia articles should read like essays or term papers. Making the article neutral is good, just not the way you did it. How many times do I need to repeat this? Rewrite the section, citing secondary sources (citing primary sources is in fact original research, as the term is defined here). Make it sound like a newspaper article -- detached, neutral, and NOT like an op-ed piece where you argue that he wasn't guilty. You've spent so much time trying to make your point with me where instead you could have been working on the article.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's his problem Howcheng. He CAN'T make the article more neutral.  He wants to make Westerfield out to be a martyr for the wrongfully convicted.  Just look into their contributions - it's all Westerfield.  They don't care about wikipedia.  They don't care about accuracy.  Their sole concern is for the child-killer to go free.  If I were you Howcheng I would block them.  Also block their sock puppets Freedomsring and Currious1.    TripleH1976 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have failed to point out a single inaccuracy in my edits, and only now, after MONTHS of fighting against them, have you finally implemented or permitted certain limited corrections and improvements to the article, so clearly YOU are the one who doesn’t care about accuracy or Wikipedia. If I had more time then I might edit other articles - but you have ensured that I don’t have more time.  As I’ve pointed out before, I have given almost 100 reasons in the “Guilty?” section for believing there was a wrongful conviction, none of which you have disputed (you merely tried to downplay some of them), so clearly I am not the one wanting a child-killer to go free.  The Wikipedia entry for sock puppets states that strawman sockpuppets “often act in an unintelligent or uninformed manner, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner”.  That is a good description of you, implying that you could be my sockpuppet.  I see you have developed a Jekyll and Hyde personality: polite and respectful to the administrator, but still rude to ordinary editors.196.15.168.40 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Replying to yet another endless diatribe from 196.15.168.40.

So now are you admitting that you came to wikipedia with an agenda? You want to tell the world there was a wrongful conviction? That's not news to me. It only took me a few edits to know you came here with that in mind. I have disputed many of your claims. Why do you think I archived the talk page in the Westerfield article? Because I was writing back and forth to you on it for so long. Now it appears like you want to do the same in Howcheng's talk page. His friends can claim he is a saint, and I'll still think he killed Danielle. I don't care what they say. Furthermore, if you put in some of the same effort, as you do, with your messages maybe you could have made the "Guilty?" section neutral by now. You think because you paid close attention to the trial, that everyone else did too. You expect Howcheng to tell you, "all right 196.15.168.40 you watched the trial. You have carte blanche on the article.  Make Westerfield a martyr". You're obsessed with the media as if they convicted him. Most of the time the media does lean towards guilt. So you can say that about many cases, the Westerfield case is nothing special. The media didn't convict him; a jury DID! Who are you to say the jury was under pressure to convict? Did you know one of them? Don't try speaking for them if you don't. And don't compare the Westerfield case with the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. Abu-Jamal was convicted largely on faulty eye witness statements. Westerfield was not. He was convicted on forensic evidence. Personally, I don't think you could convict Westerfield with more compelling evidence. You seem obsessed that he is a great guy and we should all cry him a river, because he's in jail. Westerfield is a child-killer, and I wish California was faster in carrying out the death penalty that way Westerfield would be dead; can't happen soon enough for me. Another reason to oppose your "guilty?" section is the fact that you use weasel words. 205.250.55.211 01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to howcheng:

I might have instead been working on the article, but my work would have been promptly removed so my effort would have been wasted. You are assuming that TripleH1976 is a normal, rational human being. He isn’t. I’ve already given ample evidence of that. He is, instead, a fanatic, impervious to reason. Some 37 of my references were SECONDARY sources, but TripleH1976 deleted them anyway. Any excuse is sufficient for him. Truth and justice don’t come into it.

I can understand the point about not having original research, but I don’t agree with it, not in a case like this in which media coverage was superficial and biased. It means that, if the media didn’t report something, I can’t mention it, even though millions of people throughout the country heard it at the time and can still verify it for themselves; and if the media reported something incorrectly, Wikipedia can contain only the incorrect information, not the correct information! It simply doesn’t make sense. Let me give an example. No evidence was found that Westerfield had been in the van Dam home. That statement CAN be found in media reports, but it is attributed to the defense attorneys or one of Westerfield’s friends. Which therefore devalues/minimizes it, it’s what you would EXPECT them to say. But I quoted the JUDGE as saying it. That carries FAR more weight, but the media didn’t report that (at least not that I could find in the HUNDREDS of articles I scanned).

But IS my content “original research”? ALL of it was published by a “reliable source” (a major and respected local newspaper), and is readily available to readers. I would argue that it is “source-based research”, which is “strongly encouraged”. And primary sources are explicitly INCLUDED (permitted).

My section might LOOK as though I’m making the argument myself, but that’s surely because all the points are concentrated together in one section. (I previously explained why I did that: it wasn’t my first choice, I felt I was forced into it, but I nevertheless think it is a good and valid option.) If they were instead scattered around the article, it might not give that impression. I am quoting other sources in my section questioning guilt, just as the rest of the article should (but doesn’t) quote other sources in its argument pointing to guilt, so it’s not really true that I am making the argument myself, any more than the rest of the article is making its argument itself. True, I could constantly attribute the comments to whoever made them, but that would make the section even longer (or reduce the number of points I could include, to keep the length down). But if I must do that, then surely the rest of the article must do the same. There is a similar section in the Bruno Hauptmann article, albeit shorter and without references, so there is a precedent. The article on Mumia Abu-Jamal contains a considerable amount of argument that he was wrongfully convicted, and even has some references. Another precedent.

In saying that my section is “just too much”, you are perhaps referring to the length. It’s only ONE page - that’s about the same length as the rest of the article. And it includes the most significant evidence pointing to guilt - which the jury found sufficiently compelling to convict. So it’s not entirely a section arguing for innocence. The many references might make it appear longer than it actually is, but references are GOOD, and they are an example to other people, a very necessary example when you consider that the rest of the article contains NO references - making it appear shorter. (I don’t mind reducing the number of references: it’s more important to me to draw attention to the AREAS and POINTS of concern. Interested readers will then know WHAT to look for.)

I would argue that the length is justified because there is so much misinformation about the case - as evidenced by the many errors I found in the article when I first saw it. And the compulsory appeal will probably come up next year, so the extra information is timely. This was a very high-profile case - even the President mentioned it - so extra information can be justified on that ground. Also by the fact that the verdict is vigorously disputed. It can also be justified on the grounds that there were distinctive aspects of this case: this is likely the first time that this particular area of the fingers was used to make an identification. If entomological evidence is as inaccurate/unreliable as the prosecution argued - and the jury believed - then its use in criminal cases should be seriously reconsidered. And mine is a GOOD section (even if I say so myself). It gives a VARIETY of different arguments, showing that the concern over the verdict has a very broad base. And it’s an IMPORTANT section. A man’s life is quite literally at stake (and potentially the lives of many other children if he wasn’t Danielle’s killer). And the importance is not limited to this case: this is very relevant to the question of capital punishment. It shows that someone can be executed even though there are MANY concerns over their guilt. Ordinary members of the public should be made aware of this - it could happen to them or to someone they love. If you don’t think the Westerfield article is an appropriate place for this, then please suggest a better alternative.

With regard to the “newspaper” comments, I was surprised that you interpreted the first pillar to mean that Wikipedia does not cover all breaking news: I don’t see that from the context. Also, one of its advantages over the traditional encyclopedia is that it CAN be updated very rapidly - and SHOULD be if the breaking news renders anything in it out of date. I place a very different interpretation on the “newspaper” reference. Newspaper articles can be quite chatty and informal: that is out of place in an encyclopedia. I would also dispute that newspapers are detached and neutral. They may be sometimes, but not in this case. I’ve already given an example: both the local paper and Court TV repeatedly cast suspicion on Westerfield by describing his weekend trip as “strange”, “meandering”, “convoluted”, “weird”.

I don’t see anything wrong in one section in an encyclopedia article (whether in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia) adopting a particular point of view, provided it states clearly what it is doing (which I did), and especially if that is done in response to a contrary bias in the rest of the article (as it was in this case). Anyone who thinks that this unbalances the article is at liberty to restore a balance, in this case such as by shortening the section or adding more evidence pointing to guilt. However, I would repeat that my section does NOT state that Westerfield is innocent, I merely point out that these are areas of concern. I do not dispute that there IS evidence pointing to him. My goal is to make people THINK. I am merely drawing people’s attention to certain facts, no more than that. In fact, there’s very little in my section that can be described as “opinion”: it’s almost entirely a collection of undisputed facts about the case.

It might be tiresome for you to have all these questions thrown at you, so you have my sympathy, but I am up against a really intolerant and obnoxious opponent, who will do anything he can to SUPPRESS evidence pointing to Westerfield’s innocence. It is therefore important that I can JUSTIFY everything I do.196.15.168.40 06:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 196.15.168.40 how many times do I have to tell you WIKIPEDIA IS NOT YOUR SOAPBOX?????? If you're interested in making people think then be a teacher.  Not everyone watched the Westerfield trial like you did.  It took 3 years for an article to even be made here.  207.68.239.252 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:AirPort Admin Utility Icon.png
You've left a note on my talkpage regarding an image I processed. I have to ask you kindly not to add such notes regarding images I've only optimized, though (edit summary: optimized using optipng), because I neither have any idea where they come from, nor do I even care if they're deleted or not - all I do is optimize them, no matter what they are. Thanks. -- elias . hc  18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Plume (hydrodynamics)
Thanks for adding the image of the Shuttle plume. However, this is a fairly complex geometry - do we have one of say a straightforward chimney plume, (with or without a change in buoyancy and formation of a smoke-layer??) Bob aka Linuxlad 09:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I was creating the Picture of the Day with the shuttle image, which links to plume, and I noticed there wasn't a picture there, so I just threw it in. There are a few in Commons:Category:Smoke you might try.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:KamakuraDaibutsu1.jpg Deletion Listing

 * Hi Howcheng, and thanks for letting me know about the listing of Image:KamakuraDaibutsu1.jpg for deletion. I don't mind deleting this photo from Wikipedia; it's also on Commons. However, I think that a GFDL photo, even if better, should coexist with a PD photo, not replace it. (Because it's on Commons, it's not an issue for this photo.) I do appreciate your informing me about the listing. Fg2 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations and thanks for nominating it. -- Moondigger 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Calaveras Skull
Hi Howcheng,

Thanks for the message. That was the first copyvio I've ever tagged; sorry I missed a step. I was following up some suggestions from someone in the IRC channel.

What caused my concern is visible in this comparison:

comparison with cited article by copyscape.com

The similarities seemed to warrant asking for advice in the IRC channel, and I ended up tagging it as a copyvio. (Incidentally I ended up on this article because I've been working on William Orville Ayres, who gullibly wrote an article defending the authenticity of the Calaveras skull, which is a pretty interesting read; it's available in Google books here.)

Anyway, I hope you'll agree that it would make sense to at least rephrase the identical sentences. This is an interesting article, I hope to contribute to it once I've expanded the Ayres article a bit.

No hard feelings, I hope. Best regards

--babbage 06:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I reworded it some more, but I guess Copyscape works off the Google cache or something, since it's not reflecting any of my changes.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome, saw your changes just now. ☺ --babbage 05:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Photograph you added on Homelessness article
Hi Howcheng. You added a nice award-winning picture to the Homelessness article --- which had been there before. It is an amazingly good picture of the fate of the homeless. But we had removed many photos because there was criticism that the photos were over-bearing, and pushed readers away from a NPOV. So we cut number of pictures down to two or so. There was also a criticism that the article isn't international enough, which might be the case, so a contributor (User:Ericd) in Nice, France asked for the present top one instead of the one you re-posted. See discussion on his talk page on this topic. User_talk:Ericd I am unsure how to proceed at this point. If people feel the photo images are too over-bearing, we should remove some, again ? Or put it in the US article -- Homelessness in the United States or is that too over-bearing, one wonders ? Your thoughts. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that NPOV concerns are overblown in this case, as this picture is neither a positive nor negative depiction of homelessness -- it's a very powerful image, to be sure. The flag might make it too America-centric, given the globalize/USA template in the header. Perhaps it might be best to switch the positions of this pic and the one of Ben Hana at the bottom?  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Howcheng. Oops. I just removed it for the time being. I think the photo of the homeless American is brilliant. But right now I don't know where to re-insert it to keep the "balance" required by the editors who criticised the visual NPOV before. I agree with you on general principles. Someone objected to the Ben Hana picture, as being too overbearing, but it stayed by putting it near the bottom. Unsure what a good move is. Exchanging the two images on top (your new re-insertion idea is fine with me _but_ seemingly would be against the prior peace treaty). Perhaps, you can insert it in the Homelessness in the United States article if it doesn't imbalance that ! I just don't know what the best course of action is. Perhaps post the query on the Homelessness discussion page ?. Thanks for your kind thoughts. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, good move. On the Homelessness in the United States article. I agree that this photo NPOV bit is way over-blown. Best Regards and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Howard. Well the image of a homeless person, Image:P7032101 small2.jpg, is very compelling. But we are not supposed to overload the Homelessness article with pictures, say the WP community. I am all for excellent pictures portraying a point and illustrating the article, but I have a feeling there are enough pictures there already for the community's taste. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the current picture there is sort of neutral, and internationally shows someone from Nice, France who is homeless without showing much personal details. Maybe drop a note on Ericd's talk page, since he felt strongly about having the French photo there, (User_talk:Ericd) and see what we all can come up with. Is the picture you propose to heavy to keep a NPOV ? Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:wikiklrsc)

Impersonator
Hi Howard, you have a fan,. ×Meegs 13:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to keep an eye on too, though they appear to be gone. ×Meegs 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How bizarre. Thanks for the heads up.  howch e  ng   {chat} 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gliding image
I finally persuaded the copyright holder to allow the image for all purposes. See additional notes on Featured_picture_candidates/Schempp-Hirth_Ventus_2B_Glider Please undelete anything you have deleted. Sorry about causing you extra work. JMcC 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikify-date
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look at my contributions. ... disco spinster   talk  23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remove unapropiate vote on FPC
Hello, I nominated 2 pics last day and looks like one of my friend wants to support me. It's true this is suspicious and I ask you if you think the vote are unappropiate please remove them Thank you. Arad 23:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * forgot to mention the pics are Eram Garden and Arge Bam Arad 23:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The votes won't be removed, but it's standard practice any consensus-building effort (such as FPC, FAC, AFD, etc) to note when a new user is contributing. It's up to the person who closes the debate to decide if they want to discount those votes.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then my bad, i'll put them back. Arad 00:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I just don't want to be accused of this thing.

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos of statues...
The discussion on FPC made me think about a photo that I've uploaded. Take a look at this, if you would, and let me know what licensing I need to use. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that needs to come off Commons and be tagged with Statue. The sculptor retains copyright over the piece per US copyright law. If the statue were somewhere else, say England or Germany, we wouldn't have this problem.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cat
Here's hoping you don,t take my edits of your edits the wrong way. I tried to make this as concise as possible, without repeating the whole Cat coat genetics article. --Ramdrake 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. The article is already pretty long, so it's good to remove redundancies where possible.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg
Picture deleted following a complaint from the right holders (the Mucha heirs) to the Wikimedia Foundation. Sorry for the red links, I was trying to process as many in the 'copyvio' queue as I could. David.Monniaux 04:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Undelete request
Hi Howcheng, I'd like to ask you to undelete Image:GirlsAloud_Nadine.jpg. Please see the discussion on Images and media for deletion/2006 August 28 about this - User:T-rex has different opinions about images than mainstream Wikipedia (i.e. "No unfree images should be used") and nominated this properly sourced, properly licensed, illustrative picture for deletion. If music video screencaps cannot be used on Wikipedia articles when free images are also available and being used, why do they exist at Kelly Clarkson, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, etc. etc. etc.? Perhaps you could drop User:T-rex a note about this. Thanks for your attention. Fabricationary 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, my opinions on the matter (as well as policy) are pretty much in line with T-rex. Please see WP:FAIR, specifically item 6. Although that one discusses baseball cards, it's the same concept; you cannot use a screenshot from a film/tv show/music video for the purpose of identifying the person in that scene. If it's in the Whole Lotta History article, then it could be conceivably included under fair use (but that one already has an image from the video). To be used in Nadine Coyle, it needs to complement the text in such a way that if you don't have the image, it's a lot harder to understand what the text is saying. Does that make sense? For example, is the scene that you have the screenshot of controversial in any way? Hope that helps.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg
The proper thing to do was to change the licencing from disputed PD to undisputable fair use, which I have done, thus saving this valuable image for us (if not for all articles).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The source of the phote is known and stated (firt published in Signal). The picture clearly shows Warsaw being bombed. I don't see a problem?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cowbell2.gif
I know this is a really agitating image, but there were objections and a discussion on this IfD about the image. I'm just curious what the reasoning for deletion was. Yank sox  14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was decided on Talk:More Cowbell to use a static image. That makes Image:Cowbell2.gif an orphaned fair use image, which would have been slated for deletion regardless of anything else.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bass Reeve image help
Hi, This is a tardy, but nevertheless heartfelt, thank you for responding to my question about an image on the Media copyright questions‎ page. If it weren't for people like you a lot of us wouldn't be able to do nearly as much on wikipedia! Thank you! -- Siobhan Hansa  22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice additions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Pc-lens-demo-tiltedcamera.svg/250px-Pc-lens-demo-tiltedcamera.svg.png

Jeff Dean 9/12/06