User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 5

Copyright status of Thai State and Thai Royal Household materials

 * The พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗ (Copyright Act of B.E. 2537), Section 7 lists certain works that are not copyrightable. It specifically states that Thai state rules, regulations, announcements, orders, explanations, correspondence, constitutions, laws, court decisions, examinations, and reports are not copyrightable.  See the original text of the Act in Wikisource here:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗.  A summary of the complete public domain provisions of the Act (including references) is located in Public domain. Patiwat 05:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I too, questioned whether all images of the royal family really had a cc-by-nc-nd license. In fact, I went beyond what you did: I placed  tags on every single picture (I believe it was several dozen) of the royal family and royal household in the Thai-language Wikipedia.  This sparked a long and painful debate on the matter that is documented on the Talk Page of the template for royal images in the Thai-language Wikipedia: th:คุยเรื่องแม่แบบ:ภาพพระมหากษัตริย์.  I do not want to rehash the entire debate here.  In summary, several Thai Wikipedians referenced correspondence with the Bureau of the Royal Houeshold.  Although we're supposed to assume good faith, I knew that emails can be faked, so I (and another Thai Wikipedian) called up the Bureau and reconfirmed the cc-by-nc-nd license.  If you wish to challenge this as well, I suggest you do it in th:คุยเรื่องแม่แบบ:ภาพพระมหากษัตริย์, and not here. Patiwat 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Patiwat, thanks for the reply. Regarding the two images tagged as in the public domain, the UNESCO English-language translation of Thai copyright law indicates that "The followings are not deemed copyright work by virtue of this Act : (1)news of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain, (2)constitution and legislations, (3)regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units, (4)judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports, (5)translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units."    Neither those five qualities, nor the eleven qualities you list, seem to apply to photographs, such as Image:5Dec2542.jpg or Image:Bhumibol2542.JPG (the two images I listed for deletion).
 * Regarding the three images tagged as licensed under a CC license: I did not see at http://www.palaces.thai.net/king60B/ that it says, "All photographs in this archive are owned by the respective photographers who donated their photographs to the Bureau of the Royal Household. We publish these photographs on the Creative Commons terms and conditions."  Note, however, that the Creative Commons license it links to is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NonDerivative 2.5, which is not a free license.  That said, the images may possibly be used as non-free content.  My immediate concerns are less so for these images; upon re-reading the image description pages, it looks like there may exist further concerns, but none that I will delve into now.  --Iamunknown 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, photographs in a website or in a government publication fall under government report, and are not copyrightable under Thai law. Patiwat 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been over this debate about Royal Household photographs before (and from your perspective!) and it tires me to rehash it. I'll direct some of the other principals in the debate to argue it with you. Patiwat 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For my flowers! Yes I'm still here, only just sometimes! xxxx Madmedea 18:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCV
What a strange list of SCVs today! Are you finding any copyvios among these strange listings? I'm 0 for 2 so far, starting somewhere in the middle. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just about to ask you! :P  I haven't found any copyvios when the URL is "[ ]" ... but some are poor quality, so I've been rewriting them.  --Iamunknown 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've checked 6 of them carefully and the only semblance of copying I could find was one that was split from another WP article. I want to check a few more before concluding that they're all some sort of glitch, removing them all and leaving a note for Where.  Let me know if you disagree! Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove the ones you've examined, I'll remove the ones I've examined. I concur with your observation that some of the listed articles are similar to existing Wikipedia articles.  I dropped a vague note to Where, but if you dropped a less-vague one, that would be good.  --Iamunknown 04:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm removing the ones I've examined. I also left a note on Where's talk page and shot him an email as well.  Haven't seen this before! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

YouTube
J.S., did you use a template for messages like at Talk:Al Gore's Penguin Army video? If so, is it still around? Thanks, Iamunknown 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was just something out of my own user space. I don't even remember if I saved it... You can use my wording if you like. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney
Unfortunately, I did read the topic you linked, and it states as an option someone can take for "right to vanish" "3. Delete your user and user talk subpages (contact an administrator)." I will contact ONiH and ask him if he would mind me undeleting the page, but I do not feel hopeful. SirFozzie 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the phrase "your user and user talk subpages" referred to the subpages of one's user talk page. --Iamunknown 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there!
Can you possibly pmail me, please? - A l is o n  ☺ 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! --Iamunknown 23:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC) If by pmail you mean Special:Emailuser ... I kinda was unsure

You stated, "productive editors who are working out their differences on the talk page rather than by reverting each other." Perhaps you're not aware there's just been a 3RR report. You also say, ''"though MarkThomas and Gold_heart did trade pithy retorts, I fail to see how their single statements justified the threat, "Personal attack. Next remark like that and you will be blocked."" and "multiple editors who appear to merely be in a debate"''. The justification is in the preceding history: an editor has just been blocked for "talk page vandalism, baiting, incivility, etc" (not by me). The editors' own views on each other differ a little from yours and are along the lines of "attacked me rather visicioully (sic)", "personal abuse ... [I] was met with a barrage of such comments", "Presumably you also have no clue about civility?" and "extremely rude, incivil and false".

You asked how I would "justify blocking an editor for violating "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views"?" I would have thought the question was how one would justify not blocking them if that's what they were doing. User:Sarah777 has been characterised as a good editor, but who should "try calming down and backing off of those articles for a bit. Also, it appears that Sarah777 has an anti-British point of view" in an RfC view endorsed by, amongst others, Swatjester, Alison and Sarah777 herself.

I don't see or fear an "inappropriate chilling effect". I think my intervention has had a very appropriate moderating effect, which will enable the discussion and editing to proceed in a more congenial fashion for all concerned. I feel encouraged by responses from editors such as "Thanks Tyrenius for being vigilant" and "Sure your playing a blinder". I don't take such actions without good cause and a purpose in mind for the best. I have stated my position, but my actions are open to review, so I am going to withdraw from participation in this article, and trust it will be OK to refer any future issues there to you to deal with. You can find the quotes above and the background:


 * Requests for comment/Sarah777
 * User_talk:MarkThomas,
 * Block,
 * User_talk:Gold_heart
 * User_talk:Domer48
 * User_talk:Domer48
 * Talk:Great_Irish_Famine
 * Talk:Great_Irish_Famine
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR
 * User_talk:Tyrenius
 * User_talk:Tyrenius

Tyrenius 05:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Thanks Tyrenius for being vigilant" response, was pretty "tongue in cheek". I did feel that Tyrenius tried to intimidate me, threatening a block for an aside comment. Well he is Admin, so he can, rightly or wrongly do "things". The recent 'One Night In Hackney' affair, involving Tyrenius, went totally the wrong direction, and there was no need for the outcome. I am sure that with many other Admins, the outcome would have been far different, and ONIH was a very impartial and thorough editor on many controversial topics, and will be missed. Because of that incident, I have proposed a change in the WP blocking procedure. It can be found here . Not sure if it is in the right place, but it's a start.  Gold♥  11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan_Young_Joseph_Campbell.jpg
You deleted Jonathan Young_Joseph_Campbell.JPG because you said it was under copyright dispute. The image is owned by Jonathan Young and I was given it by him and put it up with his permission. This was clearly stated on the image itself. Can you tell me why you believe it was under copyright? No point putting it back up until we get this sorted out. Thanks.


 * Sure. Copyright is a set of exclusive rights to the reproduction or the authorization of reproduction of a creative work.  A freely-licensed work is one where the copyright holder (generally the author or photographer of the work, but in some cases the employer) licenses the work for anyone to, among other things, use in commercial purposes and for commercial resale and create derivative works for any purposes (use may, however, be limited to some extent by related rights, personality rights, moral rights, etc.).  In the United States, after 1 March 1989, creative works are automatically copyrighted, whether or not the copyright holder actually registers a copyright or not.  A special provision in United States copyright law is the "public domain", which is the concept that the exclusive copyright can expire and take no effect after a certain period of time.  I am familiar with what works are in the public domain primarily due to Hirtle's chart; inasmuch as I am aware, none of the conditions detailed on that page apply to this image.  Is there any reason for which I am not aware that the copyright has expired, or the copyright holder has expressly freely licensed the work?
 * As a final note, I have not linked to many of these key words because I am not aware of specific material to recommend (other than Hirtle's chart). This is how I understand copyright, and I am confident in my understanding.  That said, please do not take this as professional legal counsel, which I neither qualified to give nor could legally give.  I suggest that you google terms you are unfamiliar with, and I think that you find adequate information.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or to ask other editors at Media copyright questions.  Cheers,  --Iamunknown 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page revert
Thanks for that. Appears there's another one looking for the fast exit around here :) -- Longhair\talk 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. :)  --Iamunknown 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I didn't even see the vandalism at first. -- Mattinbgn/talk 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iamunknown, it gets a bit hot and heavy at times, and glad I was away for a bit. I think I'll concentrate in fixing some of the Asian pages into the future, typos and grammar, can't go wrong. Thanks for the bon voyage. Gold♥ 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You two are welcome too! Gold, that sounds like an excellent plan.  If things get on Wikipedia get too rough, take a Wikibreak, or simply a break from the rough articles.  I'm glad to see you are back and refreshed.  :)  --Iamunknown 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Crowning moments
Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)


 * A reply is forthcoming. Thank you for notifying me.  --Iamunknown 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I commented on the image you directed me to, and also the other Miss USA image from 2007. Thank you, Iamunknown 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Palais Garnier article
Unfortunatey I cannot travel to Paris to take a picture of the building (I live in the USA).

If there are any free images that are just as appropriate than go ahead an use them, but since no one seems to really care, I dont see any point in changing them, especially of the inside and of the outer sculptures.

--Mrlopez2681 07:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Army and Navy ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation
My puted images from official site of the Ministry of Defence of Russia. This work is in the public domain because it has no copyright within the Russian Federation. This is because the copyright is disclaimed under Article 8 (Works not Protected by Copyright) of the Law of the Russian Federation on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (No. 5351-I of July 9, 1993). Specifically excluded from copyright protection under this provision are official documents (laws, court decisions, other texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character) and official translations thereof; State emblems and official signs (flags, armorial bearings, military ranks and insignia decorations, monetary signs and other State symbols and official signs); works of folklore; communications concerning events and facts that have informational character. Thanks.--Hasere 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting the source of those images. I disagree that they are in the public domain, and plan on listing them at WP:PUI to request the opinions of other editors.  I will let you know when I list them, so that you may be party to the discussion.  And I ask that, if they are deleted, you do not upload them again.  Again, thank you,  --Iamunknown 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Communication
Is there a way I can contact you off wiki? I tried email but it isn't enabled. IRC, perhaps? – Steel 23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! E-mail is now enabled.  I am occasionally on IRC, and if real-time chat is necessary, that would work too.  --Iamunknown 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Email should be fine. Expect something in a few minutes. – Steel 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner images
hi there, thanks for letting me know that, but can you show me what kind of copyright tag should i add to those pics? that was a hard work to find and upload that images and i really want to use them. thanks!!Salmoria 1 july 2007

Jonathan Young | Joseph Campbell and Jonathan Young Left
Jonathan Young owns these images and asked me to upload them for him because he has the illusion that I am somehow wiki-savvy. In a grump, I told him he had to upload his own Joseph_Campbell_Jonathan_Young image and I think he just gave up. If we can get these copyrights sorted out, I'll try uploading it again. But don't take my word for it -- You can write to him from the links on his web page (www.folkstory.com) and ask him if he owns the copyrights and releases them. Maybe we can get this stuff back and working like it was. Thanks.

There's another one
Unfortunately, IRC is another one of those areas where I am 100% clueless. (OK, 99%, if giggling over bash.org quotes counts for 1%.) Can you email me or am I missing the party? -- But | seriously | folks   03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it, just give me a little while to look around. -- But | seriously | folks   04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Since you were on the fringes of the ongoing issue with Sarah and the others, you may want to comment on the |ArbCom case I have opened SirFozzie 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant opinions
In a discussion on image deletion, you said "Well, thanks to both of you for regarding my opinion as irrelelvant." I don't want you to take my comments the wrong way. I certainly don't think your opinions are irrelevant or unimportant; I just think that DR may be the wrong forum for some types of discussion. Let me explain.

Near the top of the deletion review page, it says:
 * This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

In other words, it isn't useful to go back and rehash the same questions that were debated before. The only thing we're concerned with at DR is whether the process was correctly followed. That's what I meant to say. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I am discounting your views. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quadell, I generally do not say, "delete", "endorse", "overturn", "support" or whatever, and when I do, it is often at the end of my argument and is left un-emphasized. If my comments on the DRV are of no worth to the closing administrator then, in my view, if only in my view, something is wrong.  I stand by my statements that what really matters in fair use case law—marketability—was not discussed (and I stand by my implication that it needed to be discussed).  The administrator will hopefully consider all of our arguments and determine whether the image should remain deleted or be undeleted.  It is my opinion that commenting on whether "consensus was reached" would be disingenuous and marginalizing (note that this is my opinion and I do not think less of anyone else for not holding my same opinion).  There were so many more dynamics in that discussion than the word "consensus" alone can describe.  --Iamunknown 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly by-permission only images at WP:PUI
Hey Remember the dot, I've noticed lately that you've been listing images tagged with Template:Copyrighted at WP:PUI. PUI is for possibly unfree images; if an image is definitely unfree, it should be listed at WP:IFD, where it will be discussed if the image meets the non-free content criteria. Cheers, Iamunknown 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Until recently, we were allowed to use PUInonfree to allow more than 5 days to investigate whether or not the copyright holder was willing to relicense. Still, I'll keep your comments in mind in the future. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I was unaware of that. You may interested in the deletion discussion for the template.  --Iamunknown 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image
Stop disrupting photo declarations posted at articles. Go and scavanger elsewhere other than Cemal Gursel photopages. The pages you are vandalizing have more than adequate copyright declarations. This is not a place for you to play self-satisfaction games.71.184.3.110 71.184.3.110


 * I am sorry if I have previously been unclear. Image:CemalGursel.jpg, quite simply, does not have "more than adequate copyright declarations".  It is currently tagged with both PD-TR-Gov, which indicates that the image is freely-licensed, and Non-free historic image which indicates that the image is not free.  Further, it provides no source to back up either claim.  I am left wondering whether it is free or not free, and by which source I can verify that.  If you are familiar with the image, could you provide a source?  Thank you, Iamunknown 03:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make if it is free or not free? It is a photo taken by the army, published in an army magazine, free to public use. Read the declarations there carefully.

Stop bothering the photo page and go buck around elsewhere. 71.184.3.110


 * The difference it makes is that Wikipedia aims to be a free encyclopedia for everybody to use and re-use. If we do not know the copyright status of an image—whether the image is "free" or "not free"—we are compromising our mission and hosting content that might be a copyright violation.  Do you realize that, even if you remove the PUIdisputed tag, the image may still be deleted, as it is currently listed at WP:PUI?  Anyways, it will be deleted unless appropriate copyright information is given.  BTW, what do you mean by "the decleration page and wikipedia rules carefully"?  Thanks, Iamunknown 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Numa Numa
Thanks for your recognition of my tweaking the article. All I really did was move some commas around and add []s to things. As for suggestions, I'd say do what you can to get rid of that notice at the beginning. Also, the last paragraph under Parody could use some context. I assume NNH stands for "Numa Numa Hey," but with the hentai connection, I'm afraid to look. Good luck.JDspeeder1 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An overdue thank you
Hi, Iamunknown, I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA, and for your very kind comments, and also for all the good work you're doing here. Oh, and also for the rose you left on my talk page. And let me assure you that I didn't grow up with any dread for biscuits. In fact, I made some recently, as you see, so I'm very happy to offer a few to you.

I see you're an admin at Wikibooks, by the way. I'm hoping to get more active there, but will want to familiarise myself with policy and practice first. I've recently uploaded some breadmaking images to Commons (see here), but am not sure that it would be appropriate to add images of my bread, made with my recipe, to an existing, pictureless, recipe of someone else's bread, especially a recipe that recommends dried yeast (gasp in horror)! Hope you enjoy the biscuits. Thanks again. :) ElinorD (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Elinor, I'm sorry I haven't replied to your note; I probably won't give a longer reply—I've caught the wiki-blues—but I wanted to let you know that I appreciated your note and the Viennese biscuits and that someone else did too. :)  Again, thanks, Iamunknown 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

More Trouble back at the Ranch
Thank you, unknown - No, I did not know my name was being slurried in another place! (Sarah777 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

I have tried very hard
Thanks Lamunknown, i have tried very hard, believe it or not, my friends love me., and a young girl actually gave me a huge big hug today, so I must be doing something right. There is a situation where hope might go away. Thanks, you are one of my favorites. You did make the diff in the past, and I appreciate that. Thanks again. Gold♥ 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) I have really had it tough this last few years. Between bankruptcy, and other issues, "black dogs" are always nipping. They just got on top of me lately, and i tried so hard to keep up the bright side, even though I felt very low. And the amazing thing is none of my friends know I'm down, must tell them. Most of the time everything is bright and rosy. Will try get back editing on WP in a couple of weeks. Thanks for the concern. Gold♥ 12:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
No worries. I am dropping off the grid for a little while...but you are certainly appreciated.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI
User:Jay32183 commented, "This article is pure trivia, a collection of things that are loosely related, and impossible to fix. Anyone who can't handle that should leave Wikipedia. I am right, anyone supproting (sic) this article is wrong."

I commented, "I know two of the editors advocating keep are very experienced and knowledgeable in arts articles, and I don't think Wikipedia would benefit if they took your advice, so please be civil to others, even if they don't share your priorities."

He replied, "In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy."

I said, "Your last remark is a blatant personal attack. Kindly refrain from negative comments on editors."

Perhaps you don't consider it a personal attack to communicate to someone that they are among "the worst violators of Wikipedia policy." I do.

I said to User:Bulldog123: "In the context this remark reads as a personal attack on me" (emphasis added), as he had reiterated the earlier comment, and asked him to clarify what he meant. He did so in the AfD by stating it was not intended to refer to either me or Jay32183, so I therefore take no offence and that is the end of the issue.

I think you have rather jumped the gun and added unnecessarily to this, before letting Bulldog123 and myself resolve our discussion.

I happen to disagree with you as regards citing AGF and CIVIL. Editors should refrain from personal remarks. Good editors have no problem with acknowledging and backing off from personal remarks, in order to focus on the issues. There is certainly no need to escalate the situation by posting to AN/I over a relatively small incident. It was not anyway an administrative action, and could not be, due to my involvement. I happen to have rights as an editor, like any other editor, in this case to ask for a cessation of personal comment. Tyrenius 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied at your talk page. --Iamunknown 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that I liberally block editors as you say, and, if that were the case, I would have expected to see a lot of unblocks taking place from other admins, in which case I would modify my approach accordingly, realising that I was out of step. I am always careful to make it quite clear to editors with warning, so they have a chance to change and thus avoid being blocked: prevention is better than cure. Perhaps you could cite some examples of my liberal blocking activities. Tyrenius 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied at your talk page. I have it on watchlist, so I see when you reply :P  --Iamunknown 04:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a well founded perception
04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. :\  --Iamunknown 05:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Msg
I dont know how to message you, so this seems to be the way to do it

Whats going on now?


 * Hello, Mr wiggl3s. You are currently unable to edit User:Mr wiggl3s because an administrator (not myself; I am not an administrator) protected it.  I believe that you have the best intentions in adding content related to Lincoln special editions, but you should realize that content from many websites is inappropriate to add to Wikipedia.  Content posted to Wikipedia—including this very message I am writing—is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (see the text of the license here); basically, anyone can redistribute it, for commercial reuse or not, and modify it, as long as it is licensed under the same license.  Many websites on the Internet are not under compatible license; in fact, many websites expressly forbid you to reuse or modify their content.
 * While you are encouraged to develop content, you must realize this and work within the parameters. It is generally best to develop your own new content.  Paraphrasing copyrighted content is not enough; one web site regarding copyright suggests that, "[you must] significantly change the style and grammatical structure to fit in the context of [your content]."  Alternatively, you may make a formal request that the copyright holder license his or her content under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Commons:Email templates and Requesting copyright permission).  I hoped you would react to my original message in April, but this is the first time we've talked.
 * Do you understand this and how it relates to your collection of information related to Lincoln special editions? (P.S. To leave a response to this message, click the "[edit]" button to the right of the text that says, "Msg".  Then type below this line.)  --Iamunknown 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All the stuff on my page is from dealership released material. Its kind of hard to explain, the dealerships write all this information out and give it to people, the the people just spread it on. You kinda get the just of what im trying to say?


 * I think that I understand; the text you are compiling on your user page is promotional material released by Lincoln dealerships? --Iamunknown 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The cars on my page are all pre-1996 right. So when these cars first came out they came out with brochures, memo's, and just general information type of stuff. These things were collected and held over the years. I can't/don't have any of them, but often times people donate them to more popular sites (like the ones i listed on my page) and i just copy the info from their pages (the brochures ) to my page and cite it.

You kinda get the just of what im saying?

My RfA
Thank you very much for the supportive comment at my RfA. I am curious though why you posted in the general discussion area rather than taking a position (support, oppose or neutral). Have I neglected to address a point that is of concern to you? -- But | seriously | folks   19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No points are currently of concern. I generally do not comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections of an RFA because it is my opinion that they do not represent a means of generating consensus.  --Iamunknown 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I agree that voting (or even !voting) is divisive and generally sets people apart.  Do you know whether closing crats generally factor your views into their decisions?  (Although I'm not sure how you would know that, unless you've asked them.) --  But | seriously | folks   23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the bureucrat who regularly closes RFAs does not generally consider such comments; at least, that is my understanding of his/her procedure from interacting with him/her and from participating in his/her RfB (which is recommended reading, btw ;)). --Iamunknown 06:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting indeed. So you continue to place your comments out of the !voting pidgeonholes even though you know that the crat who closes many/most of the RfA's thinks that "signal[s] a different and unclear expression of opinion".  Doesn't the person with the extra bit win that argument?  And can you make an exception for my RfA?  (Just kidding on that last question.  If we don't stand by our principles, what do we have left at the end of the day?)  Thanks for the info. --  But | seriously | folks   06:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, and thanks for your "different and unclear expression" of support! ;-)  --  But | seriously | folks   00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB
Thanks for your comment, I formatted it a bit, I hope you don't mind. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I didn't notice the extra line break.  --Iamunknown 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:GBAMap.jpg
Hi Iamunknown. The image was deleted as a replaceable fair use image (as it was not fair use, being just a map). It has since been reuploaded to Commons. The blurb from when it was deleted said:


 * Kushan Map
 * Boundary of the Kushan empire at its greatest extent, ca. 150 A.D.


 * Copyright Metropolitan Museum of Art http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/kush/hd_kush_d1map.htm
 * Fair use for non commercial purposes as described in
 * http://www.metmuseum.org/copyright.htm


 * noncommercial
 * Replaceable fair use
 * badJPEG

It would appear that it remains a copyvio. But it's on Commons, so this humble Wikipedia admin can do nothing about it. People use Commons to circumvent copyright a lot. Neil  ╦  08:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion endorsement: Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_12 User:Rfwoolf/Evidence
While your feedback in your vote is constructive in nature (and I can only thank you for that) I have posted the following response to your vote:

As Richard has rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you can only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page, and should have been speedy-deleted". Your comments don't seem to say any of that - you instead refer to keeping RfC pages around for too long. If that's how you feel, vote to overturn the speedy-deletion, and vote for 'delete' on the MfD page when it reopens Rfwoolf 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re; WP Blocking Policy
Yeah, must have seen the posts! WP had to change the policy, sooner rather than later. Thanks for letting me know. GH 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words. I have been exceptionally busy for a number of weeks now. I'm hoping that things will calm down as the summer goes on. Jkelly 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
And for once something on Wikimedia happens sooner than the announced date. ;-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright question
Hi. You've listed yourself on the editor assistance list as being willing to help with image copyright questions. I have a question I'm hoping you can help me with.

Two days ago, uploaded multiple photos of herself under a pd-self license with the intention of creating an article about herself. After I pointed her to the conflict of interest guideline, she seems to have dropped the idea. She stated on my talk page that she has the rights to these photos, but they all have the photographer's logo on them.

So, my question is: is the claim of ownership valid or likely? I have a feeling it's not, but I want to check. If the claim of ownership is clearly invalid, I can simply tag the pages with Di-replaceable fair use (they depict a living person) so that they'll be deleted in 2 days. I thank you in advance for any insight you can give. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These are my thoughts (all the links go to an excellent Stanford site regarding copyright): Copyrights are generally held by those who create the copyrighted work. The specific rights that the copyright holder has include reproduction rights, distribution rights, the right to create adaptations (derivative works) and performance and display rights.  These rights can be transferred, in part (as a license) or in whole (as an "assignment").
 * There are a few exceptions to who holds copyright; the only relevant one in these circumstances is "work for hire", where the employer owns the copyright of a work created by an employee in the course of his/her employment (see the first link). I don't think, however, that this exception applies in this case; I think that the photographer, not the model, owns the copyrights to the photographs.
 * Ms K may hold some contractual rights which include limited redistribution for promotional purposes. I don't know for certain as those would be in the terms of the contract between her and the photographer.  (As far as I know, modeling contracts are not generally fair to the model in terms of such rights.)
 * I do not think, however, that Ms K has the legal right to release the photographs, even those depicting her, into the public domain or to license them under a free license.
 * I recommend that you explain to Ms K what freedoms a freely-licensed work and, even moreso, a public domain work provide for reusers (specifically, the unrestricted right to reproduction, distribution, adaptation, performance and display) and how this is likely different than her professional modeling contract. Then I suggest you tag the images as non-free (with restricted use) and as replaceable non-free images (as you suggested).  Hope this helps.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me.  --Iamunknown 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed and most informative response. I have done as you suggested, notified the uploader, and tagged the images. Many thanks once again, Black Falcon (Talk) 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks
you know Leebo he's been on wikipedia since December 2006 and i've only been here since May 2007 how did Leebo become one?--Physik 21:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of time, Physik, Leebo has been here for five more months than you. I would again suggest that you stop thinking about adminship, and start focusing on contributing to the encyclopedia.  One thing many editors think an admin should be experienced in is cleaning up vandalism.  Why don't you go to Cleaning up vandalism and start?  --Iamunknown 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Would you care for adminship? I've done a brief review and your work here seems superb. I'd be happy delighted to nominate you if you were interested in getting the buttons. Thoughts? Pedro | Chat  21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and I wish to co-nominate you. You are more than qualified, and with tools you could clear out all the copyright violations aster. -N 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. Let me think about it, and I'll get back to you tonight or tomorrow.  (I have a meeting I must be off to at this point, so I can't fully respond.)  --Iamunknown 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Beauty pageant IFDs
Hi! I note that you participated in the discussion at, and that you believed there were issues with the image regarding NFC 2. There have since been other IFDs, but currently Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg is up for. I appreciate the NFC 2 concern and in an attempt to reduce this I have resized the image to thumbnail size only and reduced the quality of the image, as I recall a suggestion made that doing this may help the commercial competition issue. I was wondering whether you would be interested in commenting on this at that discussion there. I have no idea whether this really would make any difference at all but thought it was worth trying. PageantUpdater 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A Clear Mistake
Hello. I would like to point your attention to:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg

... which is a screenshot about an image recently deleted in the anti-fair use hysteria.

As this clearly shows, the image - ''It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use'' - was indeed made available by CBS to ALL media outlets. Also please note that the AP lists this image as an "Undated CBS promotional photo".

As user Abu Badali put it, All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. So here it is. Will you assist in restoring this image?

Jenolen   speak it!  03:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. In the left browser it says, "** Undated CBS promotional photo ** No sales **" (mixed case mine).  So, to clarify, that means CBS fully intended it to be redistributed for promotional purposes and does not intend to sell licenses to redistribute it?  (Where were able to get those screenshots?  I've always wanted to look at the AP's collection.)  --Iamunknown 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Jenolen's message above was posted in 3 different talk pages. I suggest we concentrate the discussion on his talk page. --Abu badali (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

NFC issues
Hi, thanks for alerting me to the debate on Criterion 1. I was unaware that this Ned Scott personage had reverted my removal of the bloat from that Criterion. As soon as the lock is undone, I'll be removing it again.

I'm mostly concerned about the criteria. The examples, well, not being an expert in this area, I'd sooner others thrash out the legal issues; then I'll come along and copy-edit them. Tony 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not bloat. People are really really stupid when it comes to the NFCC criteria, and yes THEY NEED all that hand-holding. -N 13:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the non-experts I have in mind in trying to make the criteria themselves as short and simple as possible. Cordonning off the examples is a key way of doing this. Tony 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree that the bloat should not be in the policy (though it can be in the guideline). I do fear, however, that the guideline (i.e. everything except WP:NFCC) is becoming too bloated.  But that will be a task for a future time.  --Iamunknown 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Images for the Kuh Ledesma article


That's great that you got a free image, Dragonbite!! It looks great! In my experience, Flickr users are totally willing to freely license their photos (especially when the find out the photos can then be used on Wikipedia!). Thanks for the barnstar, it looks great. :-D If you have any other image- or copyright-related questions, feel free to ask me! --Iamunknown 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

copy-editing
Thanks, Iam! I rely on people to alert me when text that really matters needs tweaking. Part of my rationing system. Tony 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Links
Hi Iamunknown, ye, it looks bizarre, and interesting. They are a list of pages linked to Irish Potato Famine, which had a change of name 4 weeks ago. Well someone should make the updates, so over the next couple of days, will make a stab at it. Tedious stuff;) GH  03:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon on my talk page
This anonymous user's other edits indicate the likelihood that it's the same person who has been vandalizing my page, DerHexer's page, and Silly rabbit's page recently. I appreciate the effort to clarify the issue, but this user is just trolling me right now. I plan to ignore further comments.  Leebo  T / C  16:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Spillway
Why was my picture of Lake Texoma spillway replaced by someone else's? It was located in Spillway. Not Lake Texoma. Thank you. Brendajane 13:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The image you uploaded, Image:Lake Texoma, 2007.JPG, was replaced with an image, Image:Denisondam-spillway.jpg (see [ this revision]), uploaded by another editor. I'm not sure why the editor replaced yours, but feel free to add it back into the gallery.  And thank you very much for contributing to free content and to Wikipedia.  Feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.  :-)  --Iamunknown 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks. I went ahead and removed the trolling from my page again, as the guy was not vindicated at wp:an. Thanks for the notice. -Nard 15:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks -- for supporting the proposal at Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. I've there reworded per your suggestion. HG | Talk 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As you may know, the AfD was closed and your contribution apparently noted. Thanks again. HG | Talk 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had not read your thoughtful post, I probably would have gone into the AfD gung-ho, and just inflamed the situation. When I read your post, I decided to try and be constructive.  Thank you very much.  :-)  --Iamunknown 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oy!
I peeked into your user contribs (hope you don't mind!), and thought I would point out Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg to you! It is currently up for a deletion debate, but is likely to be spared (due to the excellent research of Carl Lindberg). A free Commons-hosted image is better than a non-Commons-hosted free image! --Iamunknown 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What? You read my logs? You stalker! :) Now seriously, if the commons people decide that image is ok, I agree that we should use them. --Abu badali (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Claude_nicollier_ESA.jpg listed for deletion
Hi Iamunknown, thanks for letting me know about the deletion. I agree with your comment, you can proceed with deletion. :) Nova77 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, I was aware of the deletion tracking page linked at User:Alansohn's RfC. I will, however, move to list it on MfD. Thanks for the heads up: I appreciate it. Eusebeus 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk/Mathematics
Well, thank you for your contribution. Hate to see a day go by unnoticed! - hydnjo talk 04:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Asking for advice...
hi lamunknown, thanks a lot for your message! i've never noticed that"+"! so thanks!=]

well i still can't find a Jon Heder photo for Wiki, i've tried "Flickr" and asked for permission and nobody answers me. so what can i do now?...sometimes i just wonder, i just wanna see a photo of my idol on wiki, but how can it turn out so hard?...><

EDIT: oh hey! i'm just wondering if i can use this promotional picture, http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/aplus/bladesofglory/bladesofglory8-lo.jpg (from amazon.com)OR http://www.bladesofglorymovie.com/downloads/blades_wallpaper3_800x600.jpg (from official website)

i've checked the tool "Upload file" in wiki, but i don't understand what it's talking about at all. How do i get a license of a promotional picture? How do i know "the full name of the author or the copyright holder"? Please do tell me, thanks!

Winniee852 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:JamaicaCrownCopyright
No problem. No hard feelings. Thanks for the note.-- Eva  b  d  18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA Talk
Could you perhaps mean "admission" instead of "omission"? Risker 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant "omission", but I have removed my comment, as I feel it doesn't constructively further discussion. Including sites critical of Wikipedia, or which provide a link to edit a page, as "attack sites" is IMO ludicrous, but I should probably not belabour the point.  Thanks for pointing it out.  :)  --Iamunknown 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

fair use
Fair use is allowed. Johanbach 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank talk page disclaimer
Regarding this edit, I think the intent and purpose of that template is to prevent WP:AUTO isues, so it may not make sense to remove it. -- Cyde Weys 00:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that the people who are adding the template, using his surname at every opportunity, answering his requests to stop doing that by posting links to the user rename logs, etc. will fail to deal with any WP:AUTO issues that may arise, and he has said that he doesn't intend ever to edit it. ElinorD (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (e/c)I know. This whole dispute is incredibly silly, dramatic and nonsensical. That said, I think we can leave it out, at least for now (preferrably for a while so as to prevent drama). Perhaps THF will do as he said and not edit the article, which would leave no WP:AUTO issues to deal with. --Iamunknown 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * THF has done a good job at COI in the past. I think he really intends never to edit it. Let's strike a compromise: if he ever edits the article or even talk page, we will put the notice up. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Always a good idea, thankyou for your message. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)