User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive8

Fair use rationale guideline
Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Omarion-O-AlbumCover.jpg
Images such as Image:Omarion-O-AlbumCover.jpg also need detailed fair-use rationales as specified in their license text. The problem is that these often get used in violation of their license or in a manner which is not clearly in accordance with their license text. But in any case, WP:FU requires that fair-use images such as this one have a detailed rationale. --Yamla 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, no rationale can only be applied to fairuse or Non-free fair use in. Secondly, I know that all of the fair use templates say that a fair use rationale must be written, but it's been accepted that the boilerplate text for most of them (such as albumcover) are good enough (see Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline).  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to be the case that the no-rationale tag was only for fairuse or Non-free fair use in but check the template's discussion page. This is specifically no longer the case.  --Yamla 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I see what you mean, but it's still ambiguous, because it specifically refers to a "generic fair use template" and only Non-free fair use in and its variants are categorized as "Generic" on WP:ICT. I'll bring this up on the talk page.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A change in the Dec 19 POTD
Since you are the main contributor for selecting and maintaining the POTD, you may be interested in WP:AN, which ultimately led to this edit. The question left unanswered is what to do now with the Dec 20 POTD. Regards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

California State Normal School
As per your suggestion, I have completed my revisions of the California State Normal School article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelch7/California_State_Normal_School and hereby submit it for inclusion as part of the Wikipedia Project California. This article is the result of many hours of painstaking research into California State Normal School and CSU history. It contains unique content, including text and images, that is available nowhere else, including in any other Wikipedia article. Also, once the article is reinstated, I plan to add even more detail. I hope this important part of California educational history will not be lost. Regards, Michaelch7 December 19, 2006


 * Hi Howcheng, any update on this article? Thanks, Michaelch7 December 28, 2006


 * Sorry, vacation and all. After a quick glance, it looks pretty decent. I will move it to the right location.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Can we get a link from the Wikipedia Project California page? If so, do you have to do it, or can I? Happy New Year. Michaelch7 December 31, 2006
 * You can do it yourself, but I don't really see an appropriate location for that article link. If it's publicity you're looking for, I'd suggest writing something up for Did you know and it might get featured on the Main Page.  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

da Vinci Barnstar Award

 * Moved to user page.

Wording in a POTD
I was just reading the Picture of the day on January 10, 2007 POTD, the riffle shuffle which I nominated, and realised the wording in the opening line is quite odd as it seems the section after the comma should've come after the ohrase "riffle shuffle" rather than after poker. However I am unsure whether general users are allowed to edit POTD templates and have instead brought it here to ask for your opinion rather than making the change. –– Lid(Talk) 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The POTD stuff is a wiki, just like everything else, so if you see an error, please feel free to fix it. Thanks!  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Hi Howard! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the day
POTD row/December 24, 2006 was recently heavily vandalised, and as it appeared on the main page. I've noticed you seem to be the person creating these pages in advance of their main-page appearance - as there doesn't seem to be any real reason for them to be edited much before going live, and they're very high-risk, can you please protect them when you create them? This should mean we don't accidentally let them go live without protection - and as we seem to have an active and malicious bit of template vandalism going on these last few days, it's probably a worthwhile precaution. Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can you tell anyone else working on POTD. For full details of the vandalism, see the discussion here. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css
Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. -- ShakingSpirit talk  on behalf of Kaldari 01:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 '''
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays ! | A ndonic O Talk 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

. 

Karla Faye Tucker
Can you please go into this article and tell me why the image, I uploaded, was orphaned? I gave 3 good explanations for fair use? Are they not good enough? Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Thank you Howcheng. You are awesome!  Fighting for Justice 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Vandalism
Hello Howcheng. The Main page was vandalized last night (where I live; about 1:30 UTC), and on WP:ANI, they ask for a Commons admin to delete. Do you think you could do it? Thanks. | A ndonic O  Talk 11:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone already took care of it. howcheng {chat} 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat Island (Mississippi)
Hey I was just wondering about your contribution to an article about Cat Island, Mississippi. I was curious as to how in hell you gained knowledge regarding the fact that the island looks like a catamaran or gained its name from such. Have you even seen a photo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.55.111 (talk • contribs).
 * There's a picture right in the article. Are you telling me it doesn't look like a catamaran? howcheng {chat} 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Statue
Can you tell me if Image:OlympicParkBombing_ShrapnelMark.jpg falls under Statue or not? Hbdragon88 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it shows the statue. If you just cropped it so that you see the impact of the shrapnel, there's no fair use claim necessary at all. howcheng {chat} 07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chicago FP
Hello,

My picture of the Chicago Skyline was chosen to be a featured picture 2 months ago. When will it be featured? Is there anything that needs to be done for it? Writting a good Caption?

Buphoff 01:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see... the last one I created was February 10, 2007, with the 1895 train wreck picture. Yours is 14 photos behind that, but it will probably be about 3 weeks after that (so roughly March 2-3) because we only run 5 new ones/week with two repeats.  howcheng  {chat} 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FPC stuff
You know, when we had the earlier discussion about the Hansom cab photo of yours, I didn't feel that your comments about the FPC process being too focused on technical issues was that warranted -- or more accurately, I thought that there was good balance between aesthetics/impact and technical bits, but now I agree with you that it's been leaning a lot more towards the technical nitpicky stuff. Anyway, not that I have anything to say that you haven't said already.  howcheng  {chat} 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know - the basic problem is instruction creep. You can find essays on the problems of instruction creep elsewhere on Wikipedia. It used to be that many aspects of Wikipedia (most especially ratios required for consensus) were not written down too explicitly. This is because it is generally helpful if guidelines are interpreted with a bit of common sense. It is also seldom the case that a list of explicit instructions manages to correctly address every future scenario. In principle inappropriate guidelines can be changed, but its typically easier to introduce new untested guidelines than remove existing inappropriate ones.
 * A few years back, I spent a fair amount of effort trying to steer opinion and attitudes on FPC. As I saw it, the basic problem was that too many participants just voted yay or nay on a picture based on how pretty it looked with occaisional objections based on technical grounds. But this consistently failed diagrams and also failed to expand the range of subjects covered or broaden the number of contributors. In particular I found it almost impossible to get editors to look at how an image is used in an article. I noticed issues, such as many of Fir0002's pictures, that although visually excellent were often tacked on to an article that was something of a stub - sometimes they weren't attached to an article at all (which was a bit of headache when they came up for POTD), but no FPC voters had noticed. There is no reason why Fir0002 should be excellent at taking photos and good at writing articles - in fact you might expect that few photographers would also be good writers. And that shouldn't be a problem since Wikipedia is a collaboration between thousands of editors with different tallents. This was part of the impetuous behind setting up Picture Peer Review, to give a place to attract writers to work on articles with good illustrations (I'm not sure it has totally worked). Either way, I don't think it has had any effect on getting FPC voters to take the time to look at how an image is used in an article.
 * Another significant problem area is to encourage more professional photographers to contribute images to Wikipedia. Quite a large number of articles have external links to photographer's websites where they have some images that illustrate the subject. These are all basically spam. Few editors remove them though - and if you do, you can expect to face some critism, since most editors feel that it is useful to readers to have a link to a good range of photos on the subject. Now the incessant pressure for larger and larger images on FPC, and in Wikipedia in general, is a serious obstacle. It is difficult, but just about possible, to remove the external link and encourage a professional photographer to contribute a 1024px photo, on the basis that they can include a source link to their website on the image description page. Part of the argument their is that a 1024px photo won't hurt their print sales too much. But at the moment FPC is actively opposed to this sort of approach. I think too many editors forget that the only point in having areas like FPC is to try and improve the illustrations of Wikipedia articles across the board.
 * Its not just FPC. Many rules and guidelines in Wikipedia have, quite rightly, been revised upwards, but often at a cost. I've had issues with the shift to reject all non-commercial use only images. And a little while back I had an editor place a notice on an FA article that I had largely written, saying that it was likely to be downgraded from FA status because new guidelines on using the cite template for individual facts had come in. Fine, but where are the other editors who are going to come along and update the article to use the cite template? There doesn't even seem to be enough good editors left to keep on top of vandalism. I like the cite templates and use them in new articles, but I'm not going to go back and update every article I've worked on. I haven't signed up for maintaining Wikipedia to take advantage of each new improvement for the next 20 years.
 * In truth I'm not really that bothered because I've mostly given up trying. But I've decided to take a more bolshie stance in the hope that it might help more people notice that the problems are real. -- Solipsist 09:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion scripts
Hey- my image deletion buttons don't show up any more. I am getting "Invalid argument" on line 568 of http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/wikibits.js any time I click on an image. The line it is failing on, in the function addPortletLink, is:

node.insertBefore( item, nextnode );

When I use Visual Studio to debug, it says that nextnode is undefined and item's id is nom-for-del. It looks like the call to addPortletLink is missing a parameter, but I didn't want to just go mucking around in your script blindly to try and fix it. I recently became an admin, so I don't know if that has anything to do with it. Do I get a different set of default javascript files or something?

Thanks. --BigDT 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * D'oh -- that's probably related to changes introduced by Ilmari Karonen in this edit. I haven't used it since he updated it to use what are now common functions. I'll see what I can figure out.  howcheng  {chat} 17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message with Ilmari to let him know about the bug. However, it works fine in Firefox, so might I suggest you switch browsers? :)  howcheng  {chat} 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL ... well ... I've switched temporarilly for another problem. When I load large pages like DRV or ANI, IE is taking 99% of my CPU and just grinding to a halt.  This is brand new ... is it possible that some script changes have messed something up? I guess if nobody else is yelling loudly, it could be just me.  My work computer is slow (1.6) and usually when I'm on here, something is compiling, so that probably isn't doing me any favors ... but still, something isn't right somewhere. --BigDT 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And I thought it was just me! I am finding loading my watchlist the most cumbersome and grinding.  Sorry I just jumped in here, but it was bugging me and was considering posting to the village pump.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mark name.png
I noticed that you deleted Image:Mark name.png as the result of a 2006-09-29 IFD. Would you consider temporarily undeleting it? I would like to download the larger version and upload it to Wikimedia Commons in order to replace the scaled version (Image:250px-Mark name.png). Thanks, Iamunknown 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.  howcheng  {chat} 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All finished. Thank you. Iamunknown 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Erg
Please don't add categories arbitrarity. Dzungaria is not erg. It is a very large and diverse area: mountains, steppes, deserts. `'mikka 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going off the list of ergs from the Erg (landform) article. If it's not an erg, it probably shouldn't be in that article either.  howcheng  {chat} 19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you note from User:Waialeale
Hi Howcheng, Thanks for writing me that letter on my talk page. I think it was very nice of you. Waialeale 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned image
Thanks for the heads-up. As far as I can tell, it's not orphaned - it's used in the MLS Cup 1996 article. Bill Oaf 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

problem with monobook.js file
I notieced your username toward the bottom of the code, and thought maybe you could fix the template - or direct it to whomever would be the correct person.

I do cleanup work at AfD, and the following users come up in the AfD debates - not yet sorted. They all have the same template in their monobook:
 * User:Bbatsell/monobook.js
 * User:Circeus/monobook.js
 * User:Mikm/monobook.js
 * User:Flyingtoaster1337

Evidently there's something that isn't resolving correctly - I'm not familiar enough with this to fix it, hoping you're able to do so, and let the creator know about the problem!

Thanks - SkierRMH 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of what the problem is? Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline
I have to ask: Do you really believe that an article that marks itself again and again as "speculation" is really a valid Wikipedia article? Maybe you do, in which case I'll be intrigued to read your arguments at AFD, but if you don't, I think forcing us to jump through the hoops for the sake of "process" is, well, unfortunate. Nareek 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it can be cleaned up for one thing. Besides, the switch to AFD instead of PROD is not just for the sake of "process". PROD is for uncontested deletions -- articles that are pretty much guaranteed to get deleted so that AFD doesn't get clogged. I'm not convinced that this one falls into that category. Thus, the push to go AFD instead.  howcheng  {chat} 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're actually contesting the deletion, then I have no objection to your removing the PROD tag. The idea that someone might contest the deletion is not a good reason to delete a PROD, in my opinion. But whatever--it's in AFD now. Nareek 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Neil Morris (Neilm)
I've added information about Neil Morris to the Deceased Wikipedians page. Since you posted the original info about his death on his user page, I wondered if you had any additional info to add or a photo we could upload. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know him. I only saw the information on his talk page and then put the notice on his user page. I did ask User:Dancrumb for more information, but I don't know how much he knows either.  howcheng  {chat} 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Alabamaboy 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shorter warning template
As a bit of an experiment, I've created replaceable short. It's intended for experienced users who have uploaded a lot of fair use images (perhaps over a long time) and may get snowed in with warning templates. It's short, to the point, does the job. I don't know what would be involved in adding an option to your image warning script, and if it's not worth it then so be it, but I thought should at least come by and mention it (if people are interested, of course, I can create more like it). Chick Bowen 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. This sounds like a great idea. I can pretty easily make the script do this. Let me know when you short versions of all the warning templates. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm glad you think it's useful. After thinking about it a bit, I figured I should limit the short templates for the warnings likeliest to be applied regarding images that were uploaded in good faith by experienced users in the first place.  I've done rationale short and orphaned short.  The no source templates etc. seem more likely to be used for inexperienced users.  Let me know if you think I should do others, though.  Oh, I also noticed that there are two missing rationale templates: image fairuse rationale and missing rationale.  I don't know which you're using, or whether they should be merged in some fashion.  Thanks again. Chick Bowen 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those two are the same thing so I just redirect {image fairuse rationale} to {missing rationale}. Also, I was thinking that it would be best if the short versions had the exact same name as their longer counterparts, just with "short" appended at the end (makes it easier to program).  howcheng  {chat} 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense--done. Chick Bowen 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam picture
The picture is fantastic! Just one comment: Amsterdam is not the capital of The Netherlands, as stated on the Wikipedia page. Its the Hague. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.216.10 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
 * From The Hague:
 * The Hague is the actual seat of government, but, somewhat anomalously, not the official capital of the Netherlands, a role set aside by the Dutch constitution for Amsterdam.
 * So yes, Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.  howcheng  {chat} 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerome Barber
Jerome Barber has been renominated for deletion --Kevin Murray 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cracker Jack.jpg
You've got to be kidding. "A free image could be found"? So, you want to replace a picture of a bag of Cracker Jack with another picture of a bag of Cracker Jack? Wahkeenah 07:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm serious. It may sound trivial to you, but the one that's on the article right now is a copyright violation. There's no reason we have to use their copyrighted image when we can create one of our own. That's just being lazy.  howcheng  {chat} 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So it's OK for me to take a picture of a Cracker Jack bag and post it here, and that would not be a copyright violation? Wahkeenah 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, assuming you released it under a free license. I did that for Coca-Cola C2, for example.  howcheng  {chat} 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Coca-Cola owns their trademark, and you copied it. Seems to me like you're in violation. Wahkeenah 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be true if I used the Coca-Cola logo on my own soda, or I added it to another product in order to imply that Coca-Cola made/endorsed that product -- that would be a trademark violation. As it is, that picture simply shows a can of Coca-Cola C2 that was produced by the Coca-Cola company. I own the rights to the image itself, but not the logo which is depicted in the picture. Please see trademark for more information.  howcheng  {chat} 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I once had someone try to tell me that this photo, which I took, was a copyright violation, probably due to the presence of a trademark: Wahkeenah 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)



OK, would this do? Wahkeenah 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Image:Cracker Jack bag.JPG
 * Excellent. I put it in the article for you.  howcheng  {chat} 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deleted information
Granted, a lot of that informatoin is factual, however, I doubt that it is necessary. In the name of neurality, to say that Costello is a "powerful" performer needs to be cited, and if that was indeed what was said, we should be able to source such a quote. Please discuss. Nervousbreakdance 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Talk:My Aim Is True.

President and feather
Hello! Some help from contributors made possible to drop the feather from presidents head in picture, now you should like it and I hop you will reconsider you previous position - Antanas Smetona. Cheers, M.K. 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Mythology
Thanks. Unfortunately I can't locate any "Move" tab, and I have had to move the text of "Dylan Eil Ton" to "Dylan Eil Don" by cutting and pasting again. Sanddef

Template:GFDL-presumed
The template was originaly designed for when we were first tagging images and there were some that had been uploaded by people who had left. Today tagging is standard. if something isn't tagged there is no reason at all to presume GFDL.Geni 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Considering that GFDL is the default licensing". Take a look at the upload page. it hasn't said that for a long time but feel free to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.Geni 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Rapids --> Arsenal Colorado FC
The new website www.arsenalcoloradofc.com briefly went live today. For weeks the Rapids hasve said to expect a big change 2/01/2007. That is totday. A news conference has been called for tomorrow to make the change official.

Just trying to save someone some work. If you want to save the work I did to update the MLS and Rapids pages tomorrow, please feel free too. I'm done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwestarsenal (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, no announcement today. I've been checking that web site periodically as well, but it hasn't come online either. We'll just have to wait until the announcement is actually made before making any changes here.  howcheng  {chat} 03:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

DuHauron POTD
Thanks for the note. You did a good job with the caption, linking to several color-related articles. I see no need to change anything. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur
I hope you're monitoring this page since you removed the sprotect! Get rdy to see all the vandalism come back!! Regards Govvy 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on my watchlist (no changes since I unprotected it). Seriously, two months sprotected for the Spurs article is kind of ridiculous. The articles for the other top teams in the league don't have any protection and we deal with vandalism fine on them.  howcheng  {chat} 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All the other top clubs are protected, you said in my talk, 10x/day for several days that exactly what Spurs got down to with vandalism. It was a serious problem and probably will be again since you removed it. Govvy 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? I have a feeling the protection is being applied a lot more liberally than it used to.  howcheng  {chat} 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shame I know, just a lot of people have predigest against a lot of things. I am sure most of these vandals are under a certain age! and I'll bet if you asked them all "What is the length of the longest side of an isosceles triangle?" I'd bet they wouldn't know!! Govvy 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

POTD
Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Using the caliper new en.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 10, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-10. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Howcheng. I did try to improve the explanation, but the resulting English might still need a review. Alvesgaspar 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Fact
Why are you inexplicably removing Category:All articles with unsourced statements from this template? Aside from Unsourced and its close variants, I can't think of a better template to make use of that category. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When I made this edit that category had been deleted (notice the timestamps), so it only made sense to not have the category in the template.  howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture promotion and barnstar thanks

 * ...And thank you for the barnstar as well! :) --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing

 * I see that you reverted the following images that I asked to delete: Image:Clint mathis.jpg Image:Tim howard.jpg Image:Youri Djorkaeff.jpg Image:Jeff Agoos.jpg Image:Mo Johnston.jpg. These are my photographs, taken for my website. I originally uploaded them for use on Wikipedia, but I no longer want them used. Please delete them. Thank you. DR31 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This was posted to Ryulong's talk page, and he deleted the images and removed the redlinks. However, I remember the situation, where that user tried to get all of his CC-licensed images deleted on September 23. You declared them not deleted. The above images haven't been replaced either. Could you undelete and restore them? Can that guy simply revoke whatever licensing he applied to those images? Hbdragon88 02:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, a Creative Commons declaration is irrevocable. However, these weren't licensed CC-BY, but Attribution or CopyrightedFreeUseProvided. If he had picked NoRightsReserved that would be a different story. Hmm, I'll have to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.  howcheng  {chat} 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh darn it. What did Dr31 stipulate in the free use provided template? Hbdragon88 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're on this topic of images, could you restore ? I believe it contains deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere, so the db-talk criteria doesn't apply.  I had tagged it when I wasn't aware of this. Hbdragon88 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.  howcheng  {chat} 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahara satellite image
Hi, thanks for replacing the Sahara image at POTD. I noticed that the high res version has a nasty artifact that makes the Bodélé Depression look like a lake. A fixed version is at Image:Sahara_satellite_hires_edit.jpg. Can you upload this new file over Image:Sahara_satellite_hires.jpg? I can't do it myself as the image is protected. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.  howcheng  {chat} 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

POTD
From your links to the discussion I really don't understand what the changes are going to be. Looks like a lot of bickering and back talking with nothing resolved. If it breaks my template I'll likely just deprercate it. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs • game) 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear,Howcheng
I Wanted to know do you know the user known as LatencyRemixed if you do please tell her i said thank you for the message she sent me on my talk page.THANK YOU —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellroy20 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LaSalle2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LaSalle2.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Statue again
I hate to bother you again, but I just need to know if Image:Bellagio Hand Blown Glass.jpg would qualify under statue or not. It is three-dimensional and is a permanent fixture in the Bellagio lobby - do we claim statue to be safe or is it clearly covered under freedom of panorama? Hbdragon88 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, freedom of panorama in the U.S. does not apply to statues -- only buildings. Stupid, I know, but that's the law. This image needs two license tags: one for the image itself and statue for the representation of the sculpture. Since I took so long to respond this, I fill it in.  howcheng  {chat} 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it might be covered under copyright, so I just wanted to ask to make sure.  This is probably the most pervading image problem to sort out - most people assume that it's free.  It's totally non-intuitive.  I just fixed up Image:McNair memorial 1313.JPG, for instance. Hbdragon88 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Today's FP, 'Zabriskie Point'
Howcheng,

Apologies for failing to respond sooner to the notice that you left on my talk page. I was logged out of Wikipedia for some time, neglected to sign back in and hence didn't receive the 'new changes' notice until today. A belated thank you for letting me know that the photo I nominated for FP would be hitting the front page today - it made for a lovely surprise when I saw it! Also, sorry that my inability to log back in meant that I couldn't help edit the caption, but frankly I'd have done a rubbish job anyway!

Kind regards, Countdown Crispy  ( ? 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tartan ribbon POTD
Thanks for notifying, just letting you know that I think the caption is OK! --Janke | Talk 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanxs!
Thank you for the heads up regarding the POTD appearance. The caption looks perfect to me! =)

Mr. Cheese  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RFPP - template
HI when you fulfill/decline requests at WP:RFPP can you please use the templates as instructed here Template:RFPP so that the bot can update lists and remove complete requests from the page thanks Gnangarra 12:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd forgotten about that ... it's been a while since I've done those. Will be sure to keep in mind for the future. Thanks for the reminder.  howcheng  {chat} 16:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Sorry in advance to be a bother, but would you please take a few minutes and review my request for unprotection (or reduction to semi-protection) here? I've been waiting all day for an admin to address this, and you seem to be very active in addressing such requests. I think I've made a strong case for lifting an unnecessary lock on the page. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Mael-Num 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha...now I'm doubly sorry. Majorly already handled my request.  Yarly!  Thanks again for your patience. Mael-Num 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Hey thanks for updating DYK. Why don't you list your name under backlogged section (suggestions) of DYK. Would be glad to have you as a participant (only admins can join there). --Parker007 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I only wander into DYK every once in a while, so I'll decline to do that for now. But thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Regarding your comments on the wandering spleen article being a bit short for DYK, I've recently expanded the article. It's currently at 6.9 K; thus does it meet the size requirements now?--TBC Φ talk?  03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

FYI - on DYK next update change
I moved your addition of Capital Airlines Flight 20 from DYK Next update back to the top of the March 4 suggestions. This was to add in the last eligible, soon to expire, March 3 article. Hope you don't mind. (Both wouldn't fit for page balance.) &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps
Hello. Regarding the issue that a couple of users seem to have with this page: Don't worry, the problem is not whether it is a "copyvio" or not, the problem is that not a lot of people have noticed what's going on. Once more users enter the discussion and a consensus is reached, the information will prevail (you know how these discussions work). As you can see on the nomination page, one user (User:Carnildo) notable for his strong anti-copyvio efforts, disagrees with the nomination. That is however, just one more opinion. I have listed this and the "30 international goals" page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Articles_that_need_watching. I will try to inform more users, as I believe that doing so will help take care of the matter. Cheers --ChaChaFut 03:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not worried. I'm an admin who has dealt a lot with copyright issues. I used to work on WP:CP but have since moved onto images instead. There's no need IMHO to alert other users; I trust that the admins who currently patrol WP:CP will understand the policy. I already had support for my initial version of this article at WP:DRV, so it's just a matter of getting Chris to see how he's misunderstood the issue.  howcheng  {chat} 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good. --ChaChaFut 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
I see you've been adding some articles about National Register of Historic Places properties in California. In case you're interested, there's a WikiProject at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. You can find resources there, such as a link to the National Register database and the National Historic Landmarks program. I've also been adding a few infoboxes, as well. I think you'll find the project interesting -- I know I do. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I can add myself, even though I don't expect to be a major participant. I just like the easy copy-paste jobs I can do from the NPS web site (yay for public domain U.S. federal government pages!).  howcheng  {chat} 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Cook
Look man you admit your a "Rogue admin." What kind of credibility does that give you? What would Thierry Henry think about that? Brian cook is a bastard, a loser, and doesnt deserve any of the success he has stolen from better people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.154.231 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rouge, not rogue. There's a difference. :P  howcheng  {chat} 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but I still don't see why you defend this joker. He's no good. Are you his agent or something?
 * This is Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, not Wikipedia, the web site where we bash on people we don't like. If you don't like Brian Cook, bitch about him all you want on your own blog, not here.  howcheng  {chat} 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But I don't even have my own blog how else can I spread my 'pinions. I think that people would want to know that hes not a very well liked person I'm not the only one who doesnt like how he acts.
 * Blogger is free. Have at it.  howcheng  {chat} 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you on all day protecting the precious Brian Cook article? God forbid some negative publicity about this guy get out. Why don't you get a job?
 * There's a policy: Biographies of living persons. Any negative statements must be cited from a reliable source. You're on some vendetta against Brian Cook for some reason and if you just keep trying to badmouth him in the article, you are going to get blocked. Unverified negative statements open Wikipedia to libel/defamation lawsuits. If Cook gets booed at Laker home games because of the reason you state, find an LA Times article that says so, and we won't have any problems. (PS-- I have a job. It's called being an administrator. But if you're talking in the real world, unfortunately for you I'm on a computer all day with unfettered Internet access, which lets me peek at Wikipedia whenever I feel like it. :P )  howcheng  {chat} 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures I uploaded
Hello. You recently added a comment to my talk page about a I had uploaded. You said I didn't have a good enough source. Since then, I have added a source for both this picture and I uploaded. I hope those are good enough sources. Thanks for your concern, RavenStorm 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the DYK
Thank you for the DYK on Nan Kelley. I really appreciate it! Chris 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

New NRHP Collaboration Division
Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. T <font color="#0000C0">M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again?
"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Re:Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel
Hi Dear I was putting clean tag on this page Mangrio.Sorry I did not notice it, that at same time clean-up tag appeared on this article (Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel). I removed tag. Khalidkhoso 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Historic District (San Jose, California) DYK hook
I was going to move Downtown Historic District (San Jose, California) to DYK next update and found that the hook (six architectural styles) was not directly contained in the article. Could you update the article? Perhaps enumerate them in the introductory section? (I like the hook.) &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually a summary... they're listed in the body of the article, but I'll put it in the article.  howcheng  {chat} 02:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ramona Street Architectural District, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/santaclara/ram.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ramona Street Architectural District and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Ramona Street Architectural District with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ramona Street Architectural District.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Ramona Street Architectural District/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Ramona Street Architectural District saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies, didn't notice it was a government source. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK
My first. Thank you! Regards, --Mattisse 07:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar

 * Moved to user page.


 * Feel free to post to your user page and/or leave on your talk page as you see fit. (Except this message of course, hehe.)  Smee 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC).