User talk:J Milburn/archive17

'''This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it, it is for reference purposes only. If you wish to continue a discussion here, please do so on my talk page.'''

Allmusic
I link to this site a lot when sourcing articles...and I was linking to it as "All Music Guide". About 99% of the articles I've created are currently on my watchlist. So, in the past 24 hours, my watchlist ballooned from about 50 changes to 1100. Not a complaint or anything...just amusing. Cheers Chubbles (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! Therefore...

I'd also like to add to those who've said thanks for this. I do have a comment though. Everywhere that the phrase "the All Music Guide" was used in a sentence, the phrase now reads something like, "according to the Allmusic...." Wouldn't it be better if these read, "according to Allmusic..."? Leaving the article in there makes me think of some older person who also writes to people using "the email" and is worried about those things on "the internets". I don't know if this is something that can be fixed by a bot since there are probably times when the article is still needed, but, I would think in most cases we'd be better off without it. If you take a notion to fix this, great. If not, that's alright too. The rest of us can edit that when we see it. Regards, -MrFizyx (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadway In Chicago
The correct page Broadway In Chicago is still redirected to the incorrect page Broadway in Chicago. It should be the opposite. Could you please fix this again?

Kimberlyhobart (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hector Guimard photographs
Hello J.

Saw your messages about HGuimard photo of buildings (these photos were just deleted from commons by ), I need your help about the rationale to add, my mother tongue is not english but the idea is : "this photographs are free and harmless for everyone except for french (from France) watchers" <-- needs to be reformulate. Greudin (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oups forgot to point out the right discussion, I ll continue to upload and add a rationale : Commons:commons:Deletion requests/French architects Greudin (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Connie Talbot
See you at article talk page. I did post there in the old 'Common Sense' section already, would suggest continuing there. Exxolon (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please revisit the talkpage. I HAVE pointed out relevant policy already! Exxolon (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Man
You were quick off the mark there mate! Thing is, I wasn't really happy with the picture that was there as the main image - the article is really about the group in the 70s and so I thought a picture from when they were in the charts was more appropriate than a self-taken one from nowadays. It's part of an album cover, but to be honest I'm not sure whether I can use it really. I don't know if anyone would have a self-taken picture of them from the 70s, so I don't know how replaceable it would be. Tell me what you think, obviously you'd know more about this than me.


 * Thanks for the reply. The line-up is the same today as in the picture I uploaded. Don't know how to make it smaller though. The picture I originally had was from 2007, but as I say, doesn't seem very appropriate for the article. It's already in the article, but in the 'what they're doing now' section. Do you think I should keep this one in the infobox?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for your help with that.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:SkyHigh-Soundtrack.jpg
Hey ya J.M. I've been uploading non-free use media images for a while now, and one thing I noticed is that the exact image size criteria was removed from the rationale pages sometime around the start of this year. I remember them being around 300x300, but also they could be bigger if the file size was less than 100kB, which mine are. Can you please point me to where the image size requirements are now, because I've looked here, here, here and here amongst just a few, and I can't find anything. Going by the discussions here I'm not the only one having fun with this. The funny thing is I actually bumped the size up from 300x300. Your help or opinion on this would be great. Cheers  Esradekan Gibb   "Talk" 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Need your assistance
Admin User:Journalist introduced a discussion about changing the Musician template here. And then, before anyone could discuss and come to a consensus, Journalist went ahead and changed the template code here. I have asked him to rv until a proper discussion has taken place but he seems to be done for the day. I've restored the /doc example page. Could you restore the actual box code to the consensus version until everyone can get their ideas across on the template talk page. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. The problem of the onfobox is being sorted out. In the meantime, Journalist had created a separate template to match his rejected template. Template:Infobox Musical artist2. This template and its /doc page should be speedy deleted ASAP. A couple of users have mistakingly used it in place of the proper WP:MUSICIAN template. Having the 2 different boxes will quickly add confusion to an already confusing process. Thanks. Cheers and take care. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ÍmagePio11
Thank you very much. You are right. I followed your advice. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion
J,

Being among the very very few editors/contributers who have been discussing and editing the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier to the point it is now, and how it was before your contributions, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&diff=220975243&oldid=220971714, do you have an opinion on this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your opinion and thanks for replying, J. In the first part of your answer, we see it eye to eye. Maclean's specifically grants permission to use it in Wikipedia, but not in legalese language. Of all the human types on the planet, Jesus singled out only three for special criticism. Religious Leaders, lawyers and the rich. Makes sense to me in today's world. He said words to the effect hookers could get into the kingdom of heaven before some religious leaders. Makes sense to me in today's world. That's some POV he has. Know the Truth and the Truth will set you Free.

On the second part of your answer about lawyer's letters and noble goals and trying "to create an encyclopedia with content that others can use. This is our main aim." The dispute over the images 'Second Police Warning for God's Emissary' is over from my POV. Raising it again had two other purposes.

1. I don't know how many Wikipedians there are, but having discovered my biography on line, and developing it with peacock terms and other obvious deficiencies to me, I reached out to more experienced editors for help and they removed 95% to history so most visitors, not being Wikipedians, and not being familiar with the buttons and links could see the facts. That was not the help I hoped for, but I have adapted. Truly, I had hoped hundreds of editor/contributors would be re-working the raw information by now. To date, it's been me and only the four of five of you editing out, but not contributing, with an occasional comment by someone passing through. Having already had a vigorous discussion over the deleted copyright images, at the opposite end I'm getting the same dispute over a free image. I am perplexed.

2. Indulge me in re-introducing this here again: I politely asked for permission from The Ottawa Citizen having the copyright, but they said No! Absolutely! There was no option offered to pay a fee for their use. The images are 31 years old. There is absolutely no residual commercial value in them, buried and forgotten and obviously Canwest Global with it's news monopoly wants it that way or they would not have sent a lawyer's letter to Wikipedia demanding their removal from the article. Why? Is is a matter of simple, selfish possessiveness? Is there an element of subterfuge involved? This is a matter for discussion, if not on this talk then on another talk page concerning media censorship and freedom of the press. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help here
Helo, I heard your an honest administrator (a friend on the MSN told me when I told him this problem), so I turn to you about it.

In the History of the automobile article there's an edit war beetwen me and User:Trekphiler. The reason: This information I added.

His only explanation for deleting them is because "they are all in Russian", but as you could see on the talk page here that among those sources you have two academic works, and as another sources the Soviet encyclopedia. The academic works also have sources pages.

Please do something. I'm tired of edit wars and as you could see in his messege above my discription page he clearly stated he has a bias against Russian sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.170.147 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Hi. I believe you requested fair use rationales for the screenshots in the article Gruntz. I provided fair uses rationales for each of them, yet they still display the "this image is a candidate for speedy deletion..." message. Is this normal? Gaiacarra (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Carmine Pecorelli
My dear friend, i did it by accident. I have changed the licensing information in the image page. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FultzHouse.PNG
Since the image is 3 years old I couldn't provide a source. As such I took a similar photograph myself and over-wrote the old image with the new one... oh, and I released it into the public domain. Logical2u (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Back Breaker
I noticed you like The Showdown. Have you heard the new songs yet? Good stuff. It's on their myspace.-Sector311 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Back Breaker
Lol! Ok my bad wow I just wasted more of your time.-Sector311 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image: US Walker Cup Team
Re: Image source problem with Image:1959 US Walker Cup Team.jpg. The author is the United States Golf Association and the image was present by the Naples News in a recent article: http://www.naplesnews.com/photos/galleries/2008/jul/09/whiz-kid-comes-through/50925/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleW (talk • contribs)

Image: Ward Wettlaufer
The image is property of the subject, Ward Wettlaufer, author is a family member of the subject. Acknowledge as image copyright of subject in Naples News article. Image was mislabled as 1959 by article writer. Year is 1965.

FYI: Once a file has been uploaded, it is very difficult for the occasional contributor to alter the image information, as there are no "edit" links available once the image has been uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleW (talk • contribs)

Re: Image:NYC Montage 7.jpg
Yes, I've been trying to decide the best way to handle the crediting of the photos, since there doesn't seem to be any set wikipedia protocol on the issue. I believe providing links to each one in the description should be adequate for now. --Jleon (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to messages left on my talk page
Concerning Image:1959 US Walker Cup Team.jpg, I will delete and call the United States Golf Association and inquire. Regarding you image:Ward Wettlaufer.jpg, I asked the subject, the copyright owner, and was given permission to post on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleW (talk • contribs)

Reply to the message on the image titled "Kua.jpg"
Hi, thanks for your message. As the image in question will not be used in the article (as it was going to originally), please feel free to remove it. Thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'd just thought I'd let you know. Thanks.Edito*Magica (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Evade the Noise
While I was editing this article, I noticed that it just seems to be an advertisement for the site. I checked it out and it just looks like a blog to me. If it's notable, then please disregard this message, but I was just wondering as it doesn't seem notable to me. Thanks. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unsure of where to go, so thanks for the links! I'll be sure to use those next time. Thank you! Fantasy Dragon (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Need some consensus on a metal issue...
Hello! How are you? I need to establish a clear consensus on the issue of how to spell Igor Cavalera's name - he has for the past couple of years spelled it as Iggor. However, I saw an editor recently revert a change to Iggor from Igor and, when I asked him to provide evidence of consensus on the issue, all he could say was "It is simple: Iggor is not his name". As far as I'm concerned, this is entirely inadequate. Please go to Talk:Igor Cavalera and leave comments there and on my user talk page.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 11:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd already contacted the guy.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Age groups in Scouting and Guiding
rv your edit on Age groups in Scouting and Guiding. Use is permitted according point 8 of the policy. Fair-use rationales will be added soon.--Egel Reaction? 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing how these are tables, how'd you deduce they are galleries? I see no gallery tag. Please explain. I do agree nonfree don't go in galleries. But these aren't galleries. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Each image illustrates the association in question. Can you provide concrete examples this is not allowed or explicit policy on this? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned, our standard practice is to remove images of characters from 'list of characters in ____' articles, remove screenshots from 'List of _____ episodes' and remove album covers from discography articles, despite the fact that each of them is displaying the item in question. I am shocked that you haven't come across this before- offhand, I can't link to a specific policy page, but how can throwing a non-free image in whereever a subject is mentioned (or, looking at it the other way, having a page with tens of non-free images) meet our requirement for minimal usage, according to the non-free content criteria? For further examples, take a look at the featured lists- nothing with an abundance of non-free images (often nothing with only few) is ever promoted. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I only have dealt with a few list articles, so that's why I haven't seen this before. Re "our standard practice", you mean it's just what people do? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much so- there was an arbitration case (or maybe it was just a long discussion on AN, I forget) about episode screen shots in lists, and it was determined they were against policy/our goals. Shortly thereafter, album covers were removed from discographies by a number of people including myself and ESkog. It's standard practice now. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, rolled back my edits labelling them as vandalism. That is serious, and obvious abuse of Twinkle. Do that again, and I will not hesitate in taking action. Secondly, it is made worse by the fact you are wrong. These images are clearly against point 8 (this page gives a very brief overview of the groups, a logo is not absolutely needed) as well as 3a- minimal usage. Having that many non-free images on a single page is not acceptable, and, as you yourself pointed out, they lack a fair use rationale. A valid fair use rationale could not be written, as the use in that context is not fair use. This is just the same as album covers in discography pages, screenshots in episode lists and character pictures in character lists, all of which are removed without prejudice. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When you, without warning, removed all images, you went at least two steps beyond a good faith edit. It is normal practise to first warn about images lacking fair use rationale and don't touch images which have a fair use rationale. You removed a large amount of significant information. I'm sorry for not assuming good faith.
 * Not all images are lacking the right fair use rationale.
 * It is not clearly against the policy because there are multiple fair use images in that article since 6 December 2006 and you are the first who writes that is not acceptable, so it certainly not clearly.
 * 3a: one item can't convey equivalent significant information.
 * 8: a logo can tell whether the organisation is a scout and/or a guide organisation, the organisation probably a WOSM, WAGGGS, UISGE-FSE, B-PSA, OWs organisation is: it significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. The topic is age groups in Scouting and Guiding and the reader comes to a beter understanding of the connection between the kind of organisation and the age groups in that organisation.
 * This is not a Photo_gallery but a list that uses coats of arms, flags and other logo's. Those can be used according to Logos.
 * When all needed fair use rationales are made, I see no reason why the logo's can't be shown again.
 * --Egel Reaction? 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. If I see something against policy, I remove it, and I support anyone else doing the same. As I was explaining to Rlevse above, this is standard practice now.
 * Firstly, consensus can change. I do not deny that it used to be common practice. It just isn't now. In any case, I have seen hideous BLP violations, even blatant acts of vandalism, go unreverted for months. Does that mean they should be left?
 * That's Wikilawyering. You're looking at the exact word of the policy and ignoring the spirit. Is using all those logos on the same page when the organisations that they represent minimal use? No. Is it absolutely needed? No.
 * Why not just add text saying which it is in each case?
 * Frivolous differences. You are using a large amount of non-free images when they are not absolutely needed. In any case, Logos is a guideline, and a hideous one that should be deleted, at that. The fact you are trying to use it to justify this is just further evidence of that.
 * A valid fair use rationale could not be written, as a fair use rationale needs to include an explanation of why the image is completely needed, which these aren't. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

JMilburn--RE "You are using a stupid amount of non-free images when they are not absolutely needed. In any case, Wikipedia:Logos is a guideline, and a fucking hideous one that should be deleted, at that." You need to refactor that ("stupid" and "fucking"). It's over the top and uncalled for and doesn't help one bit. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stupid can mean 'extreme' or 'amazing', or it can where I am, and Wiktionary sort of agrees. I described the guideline (not a person, I am not going to do that) as fucking hideous, which it is, I can assure you. No offence was meant either way, but I have removed the offending words. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me some time to research this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sports wikiprojects went through this a year or so ago and the decision then was to not use logos in schedule tables and the like - only to use one logo on the team page itself. This is pretty analogous. The logo is being used in the table purely for decorative reasons - it looks nicer to have it.  But there is no necessity to have it - it doesn't help you get the point across better. --B (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go with no image in the table then. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'm glad we've reached a conclusion here. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks B for coming with a convincing, somewhat, analogous case, but I disagree with him that the logo's were used in the table only for decorative reasons. Now we must find a way to put the information that is lost, back in the article without compromising the readability.
 * You should make some work of making information about this policy(change) more easily available, it is now hidden away in Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_2. That would make (your) life much easier.
 * --Egel Reaction? 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Need your help for Kevin Mahogany
Hi, I'm a relative newbie at Wikipedia, and just uploaded CD cover for this article, which was deleted. I was under the impression that I had written what was necessary to show fair use. Could you please assist me with an explanation of where I went wrong? Or perhaps the size was a little too large? Thanks much.Jazzilady(talk)Jazzilady (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for explanation about using for article about CD, but not for the person. He's an important artist, so I guess I'll have to search one out and get permission to post it.Jazzilady (talk) Jazzilady (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to determine if a publicity picture that appears on many different websites has been released into the public domain? This picture appears on both of his agency sites. Jazzilady (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:2901710.jpg
About that image. I am pretty new here so I might have mixed up few things. What do I have to choose under License Scroll to make sure the image is uploaded properly? It is an image captured by borci, user from Panoramio website who allowed me to post it on wikipedia. I am sorry if the article isn't written as it should be. I still hope you will remind me so I can edit it to a good version.

I hope I started my wikipedia career well, I put much effort in it cause I am not used to that codes and infoboxes yet.

Thanks for reminding me and lots of greetings, Znamkar (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So I can't upload in any way if the user just allowed me to post it? Or can I upload it in any other way not the GNU license? Or I will go take my own photo because the town is my home. Thank you for advice!


 * OK thanks a lot. I am learning a lot! I can't wait for more articles. Can you tell me how does this one look? Slovenia at the 2008 Summer Olympics I know it might look a bit confusing because of just so much plain text, but that is the way the other countries have made it as well. I hope you find this article nice :) Znamkar (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Welcome greeting! I will send you some more questions if I'll need them cause I see you are available to help. Thanks in advance and lots of fun. Greetings from Slovenia. Znamkar (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bergstrom image
I thought I had satisfied the fair use condition for the low-quality tiny thumbnail image from a Simpsons episode, very similar to one already on Wikipedia. If I drew my own version of the picture, would that be acceptable? Please advise. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Too bad, but I understand. Thanks for explaining it to me. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Image:Bale (grb).gif
Hi J Milburn, what part of the copyright permission on this image is unclear? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought giving full details in the 'permission' section was sufficient. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which tag should I use please? It's not very clear. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The creator of the image has given his permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha. I have found the general permission. It is here . Hope that helps. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll be more careful next time. Many thanks for looking into it. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Images on Ken McKenna (attorney) page
Hello Mr. Milburn. My name is Chris Emerson and I, and I alone, own all rights, copyrights, and permissions to all of the photos which have been deleted from the Ken McKenna (attorney) page that I created. Every single one of them. From the one you just recently deleted to the ones I see were deleted over the past couple months in my absence. The site from which you claim they originated is NOT the photos' source. That site uses them strictly at MY discretion and MY permission, because, as I said, they belong to me along with ALL rights and permissions thereof. I find it very disheartening that Wiki is so quick to suppress my proper copyrights, while allowing cyber graffiti punks to add false, baseless, and source-lacking slanderous items in its' articles. Someone keeps adding that Ken McKenna has been repeatedly reported to the Nevada State Bar for fee disputes. Extensive research and a call to the Nevada State Bar turns up absolutely zero records on file of any such disputes ever being reported. And yet, these same cyber-punks having seemingly deleted in one fell swoop all of the extensive sourcing and referencing which I put together months ago at the bottom of the Ken McKenna (attorney) page. I think this is a very unfortunate state of affairs and I hope you will be able to help me restore this page to its' proper condition with proper photos and sources as it contained a few months ago before all this happened. Thank you.--Adreamer323 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the photographs. Yes, the one particular photo in question is mine and permissions for usage were given to the RGJ for reprint purposes. Furthermore, used in the context of the article, being as it is a news story, copyright law says that it is now part of public domain usage. So not only do I own this particular photograph and retain all rights to it, but used in the context of the article, like I posted to Wiki, it is in the public domain anyway. Once again I thank you for your consideration in this matter. Would you be able to advise me on how I may be able to get the other photos restored without having to re-upload?--Adreamer323 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that is indeed the case. As long as the photo appears on the Wiki page I am happy. No need for duplicates obviously. I have contacted Nv8200p in hopes of getting the three he deleted restored as well. Can only the editor who deleted the pics restore them? As for proof, call (775) 329-6373. It is the main number for the Law Offices of Ken McKenna. Ask them if I, Chris Emerson, possess all rights and permissions to the photos that appear at my discretion on their website. That is the best proof I have to offer you...and the "others" you speak of.--Adreamer323 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New Kids on the Block
Hi J Milburn, I see you recently removed some fair-use images from the above article. Well, there has been a dispute regarding those images, and someone has re-inserted those images, so I've started a discussion. I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks. Acalamari 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I'm not an expert with images, but I do have a basic understanding. I left a couple of notes on the the user's talk page before posting to the article talk, and I'd like to hear their reason for re-adding the images. I'd rather talk than keep reverting. Acalamari 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah peer review help
Good day! Do you have some time to give me some suggestions on Peer review/Meshuggah/archive1 please? Thanks--  LYKANTROP   ✉  12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Allright. Thanks for help! --  LYKANTROP   ✉  12:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good day! Do you want to do something about that review? It would help me--  LYKANTROP   ✉  19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for that! Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP   ✉  13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"the Allmusic"
I factored that into the bot- it should have replaced any instance of "the All Music Guide" with "Allmusic" and "the All Music Guide" with "Allmusic". I'd be surprised if there were many others- have you seen it much? I am sure I could knock up a bot that would replace them, if "the Allmusic" was not a phrase that would ever be needed... J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen it a few places just today on pages that I myself started long ago: 1 2 3. Maybe its not as widespread as I thought though.  When I used the search bar on "the allmusic" these were 3 of the 4 top hits (does the search bar know where I've been?  Is it something about how I write?)  Weird. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BQ Magazine
You have removed the entry I created for BQ Magazine. There has obviously been a problem from the off with this as there have been three delete messages already (one for an image, one for the publication which has a circulation of 10,000 as being non-notable and now for Blatant Advertising).

As someone who is not connected with the publication, I did not write text the extra text to advertise it, just to expand as per your 'non-notable, tag.

The entry created is in a similar style to the others in the Newcaslte Upon Tyne Media category which I was using as a guide. Especially The Crack.

Where do we go from here?

Ka3011em Ka3011em (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jennylyn Mercado
How can I upload the photo of my Favorite singer even if I have The official website and Faie use of the photo? Please help me just want to let the people know how beautiful she really is.

(talk) rajalberini —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey this is random but thanks for helping me learn how to edit wikipedia. -Sector311 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In re Deeds of Flesh
Hello J Milburn. I hadn't actually edited any of the original Deeds of Flesh articles, but I was interested in restoring the page. The problem is, there are relatively few reliable sources online for them (unless you count Allmusic and Encyclopaedia Metallum). I do think they are popular enough to be listed here at Wikipedia though. Do you have any suggestions on how we should proceed? --Eastlaw (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I am in the process of checking the resources you suggested, and I have found a few things. I had to look up some of the pages on heavy metal websites because I really don't read that many e-zines.  On a related note, I'm not sure if one could consider Blabbermouth.Net a "reliable" source...personally I take the stuff I read on there with several grains of salt.  I will get back to you with further info within 24 hours.  --Eastlaw (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo question
I'm working on a new article about Pe'er Visner, who is leader of the Israeli Green Party and deputy mayor of Tel-Aviv. I've found a PR photo on The Greens website, and here is their listed Creative Commons license:  Can you tell me if this is appropriate for Wikipedia? --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply on my page. I do see non-free images used from time to time around Wikipedia, and I'm familiar with a few of the reasons. One being if there is no alternative. It's the only photo I can find of him, for one thing. It seems to me that as a PR photo without a copyright this should be acceptable, especially considering the Greens' view of copyright laws :) Although I recognize "seems to me" is not the same as Wikipedia policy. Do I have any argument to make for why it should be allowed? --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I actually found Mr. Visner's e-mail earlier while researching, so I just may do that. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A plan for the restoration of the Deeds of Flesh article
I have listed some additional resources for Deeds of Flesh in my sandbox, for you to peruse and approve at your leisure.

Here is what I think we should do to restore the article:


 * 1) Instead of restoring it directly into the main article namespace, I would like a copy of the original article as a user subpage.  this way, I can do some revision of it myself.
 * 2) Then I will link it to WikiProject Metal so that others can view and revise the article before it is reposted into article namespace.
 * 3) After the rest of the Wikiproject participants have had a chance to make their changes to the article, we can put it back in article namespace, and (if possible) restore the pages for the individual albums (which I'm pretty sure have all been PRODed).

Let me know on my talk page what you think of all this. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me a copy of the article--I will work on it over the next few days, when I have time. (I will be out of town for part of the weekend though.)  --Eastlaw (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bill Clinton Meets Audrey Elizabeth Smith.jpg
It says clearly in the comments "white house photographer." Who else would be in the white house taking pictures of the President of the United States? Bystandards? This is an official person; employee of the white house, and that's their official title, and it's printed right on back the picture. How many times have you been to the white house and met with the President of the United States? It's common knowledge. What more do you want?

--Eckre (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image The Borgata Twlight
I noticed that the borgatatwlight.jpg was removed, however I have permission from Borgata to use this photo. If you could please give me more information about how to get this photo accepted and up, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.36.91 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no image in the logs by that name, are you sure you got it right? Permission for Wikipedia to use the image is not enough- instead, the image must be released into the public domain or under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your summary for Ayako_Ikeda-Water_Colors.jpg
Hey, I know it was probably done with a tool, but I really appreciate your help in cleaning up my rationale for Image:Ayako_Ikeda-Water_Colors.jpg. I've had some troubles getting images on wikipedia in the past, and it's nice to see that I've actually done it properly this time! Anyway, thanks for your help, and enjoy your day. :) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lady Tribe
..And the reason you deleted the photo was because of what.....?(LonerXL (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Oooops
Thanks for telling me. I didn't even notice it :). Sorry 'bout that-- L a v e o l  T 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Hollow Men (book)
The image that you removed from The Hollow Men (book) is the cover of a DVD and is used in promotional material. It help illustrate the article and will be useful if a film infobox is created for the film. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

agilent technologies logo
Hi J Milburn!

How are you doing in these tough days? I trust you are fine.

My logo for Agilent Technologies has been OK in terms of licensing.

Somebody has replaced it with better (in his opinion) image and orphaned my logo.

The motivation was that the new pic contains the motto of the company.

I don't object: whatever the case, Wiki still has the logo, and it is good. And what is good for Wiki is good for me :)

BTW, I see you are an administrator. May I ask a couple of questions?

I am proud to be an E&E Editor, but still need some guidance.

With best wishes, Lamro (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvio
Hi! i'll just ask how come my Image:Wedding22.jpg is listed in the possibly unfree images?? I'll just need to clear things up, reply in my talk page.

thanx,
 * Padillo (talk)

ah so I see, just me the exact basis of your suspicion regarding the image as a copyright vio. thank you in advance!

Image:SanSombrèroMap.png
This is what you said on my page: Just want to clarify- the image is from that site, but you are the author? Are you a contributor to that site? And my reply is:

Yes, I am, J Milburn. They told me to draw the map and when I submitted it to their website, they accepted it and put it into the book San Sombrèro: a Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups. And then when I thought the San Sombrèro article needed a map, I uploaded the map and put it in the section about San Sombrèro. That's all you need to know. --  20000  Talk/Contributions 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FTF images
Hi,

Sorry about removing the tag think on my uploaded pictures. Another user had said I could, but I think he misunderstood what I information I had added.

I was wondering if there is an easy way to resolve this issue of copyright here. The pictures are all available on the band's website and are available there for free download. Additionally, I have contact the band and received permission from them to use the pictures. I am aware this may not satisfy the copyright violation, but is there a logical next step I should be taking to resolve the issue? I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and these would be my first images to put up, so I am still somewhat unaware of the process. I have read a lot of the information on the help pages about uploading images, but they never seem to have the answer I need. Reply on my talk page. Thanks! Ibanez Guy (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ECW images
Hi,

Sorry, but I don‘t speak english very good, because I am peruvian and I speak spanish, and I dont know which is the problem that have the photos that rose, these images are they were scanned of my collection of ECW DVDs, please, tell me the problem in Spanish Thanks! Ericystephi (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deeds of Flesh, part 3
Hello again, J Milburn. Tell me what you think of the article as it looks now. Do you think it is ready to be moved back to mainspace? --Eastlaw (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again, but can you move the article back to mainspace without cutting & pasting it? Is there a way? --Eastlaw (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for your help.  --Eastlaw (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyrights
How would I prove that I have actually taken a photo and uploaded it because it is my own work? And how would I prove that I have been given permission by a family member to upload their work?Fintan264 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand why you wouldn't believe me after what I've done, but you've taught me now that I do need to check and cite images in future, which I will do. I apologise for the time I've cost you but the two images I have left marked as me having the copyright to are honest claims.Fintan264 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Highfields Images
What is it with you, I have no objections to you deleting my pictures because I have asked permission to use all of them and am awaiting email proof, the Bondpedia one is my own creation and this can be verified by anyone on the site Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the diving picture I have cropped, zoomed and relit the picture, it is almost unrecognisable Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case feel free to delete but can I take a moment of your time to ask: I have a group of images with permission from the owner but no way to prove that I have permission and apparantly this is not good enough for wikipedia anyway, how can I go about uploading the images to wikipedia in the creator permission category? Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that's the right link, it doesn't seem to relate to what I want to do, I have permission under a free license, where do I mail to and what must I say Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So I send my emails that I got from the site and copyright owner to the adress with a note about what licence it matches and link to the image here on wikipedia, does that mean I need to reupload the images to wikipedia or just link to the old page (now deleted) Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want I can forward the mail to you by email, it would be easier, I think, to carry this all on by email... Highfields (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, Sent <font face="Batik Regular">Highfields (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I say I'm waiting for Paul Kettle to get back to me with the proper Free Licence confirmation <font face="Batik Regular">Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

question...
You placed a di-replaceable fair use tag on Image:Ccgc des grosileurs moored at Nanisivik.jpg. When instantiated that tag states:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * Add following to the image captions: deletable image-caption
 * Add following to the image captions: deletable image-caption


 * }

So, who is supposed to add the note to the captions? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the responsibility of the quality control patroller?

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw your reply.


 * Just to be clear -- it is the quality control volunteer who has the responsibility of placing the note in the caption?


 * You ask why this is a big deal?


 * I consider it a big deal because, in my opinion, it is absolutely essential for those volunteers who work to see that the wikipedia's policies are enforced strictly comply with the wikipedia's policies themselves.


 * The very first time I noticed a quality control volunteer skipping compliance with policy was back when there was a policy change retiring the noncommercial liscense. I'd uploaded about a dozen images that used that liscense, back when it complied with policy -- mainly of CCG vessels.  When the policy changed I spent a day or so, trying to respond in a way that complied with policy.  I went through our exising CCG images, trying to figure out which existing images had compliant liscenses -- about ten percent.  And I spent most of that day looking for new images of CCG vessels taken by US Federal employees on exchange programs, or reasonable equivalent.  I found about a dozen replacement images, and uploaded them.


 * A couple of days later I found a quality control volunteer had gone through and tagged dozens of Canadian images for deletion -- even some of those that I had seen had apparently compliant liscenses. The record showed this volunteer was not informing the uploader, and was not adding the deletable image-caption tag to the captions.


 * I asked the quality control patroller what they were doing, and why they weren't following the policy about informing the uploader, or the people working on the articles that used those images.


 * He had two justifications:


 * 1) Informing people of his tags cut into the efficiency of his patrolling efforts.
 * 2) He had come to the conclusion that these images had all been uploaded by bad-faith contributors -- people whose reaction to the policy change was to upload images similar to those facing deletion because the noncommercial liscense had been retired by uploading new images from those sources, but dishonestly placing inapplicable liscenses on them.


 * IMO that patroller was dead wrong. As I wrote above, I consider it absolutely essential for those who enforce policy to strictly comply with it themselves.  In my four years on the wikipedia I have seen newbies, who were beginning to make promising contributions to topics I was interested in, have some oldster, on a quality control expedition, cut corners, and not strictly comply with policy -- because doing so would cut into the efficiency of their quality control efforts.  And then I saw those promising newbies go rogue.  They had the example set for them that policy could be ignored.  Several of these once promising newbies generally ended up being permanently banned.


 * I strongly suspect this would not have happened if all of the wikipedia's quality control volunteers were civil and strictly complied with the heads-ups and advisories the wikipedia's policies and guidelines require and recommend.


 * Now your comment to me... Couldn't it be paraphrased as "I comply with policy most of the time.  Why should it be a big deal if I don't comply with policy all of the time?"


 * FWIW, after a couple of weeks, I realized that there was a grain of truth in that original quality control volunteers suspicions about those images. Some fans of the noncommercial images saw the work I had done and tried to initiate discussions about how we could save them.  I told them that we had to strictly comply with policy, without regard to how valuable we had found those noncommercial images.  I believe that 90 percent of the images he challenged without strictly conforming to policy had been tagged with bogus liscenses.  But several professional quality images of CCG helicopters in the Arctic, which he assumed must have been pinched, were taken by a contributor who lives in the Arctic who has the skills and equipment to take professional quality pictures.


 * IMO that quality control volunteer owed the good faith contributor with the skills to take professional quality images an enormous apology -- one for each image he tagged without fully complying with policy.


 * And even though his suspicions seemed to have held merit in the other cases I believe he still should have strictly complied with policy himself, because no one wants to see rogue administrators, acting high-handedly, as if the wikipedia's policies don't apply to them. When a good faith observer can't tell that the quality control volunteer isn't blithely ignoring the wikipedia's policies then the quality control volunteer should have spent the energy to demonstrate WP:AGF, no matter how sure they were that the other party was acting in bad-faith, because of the very unfortunate appearance blithely ignoring policy has on good faith third parties.


 * I spent a lot of time uploading some of those noncommercial images, in good faith, when noncommercial was a valid liscense. And I spent a very considerable amount of time looking for PD replacements when the tag was retired.  There is absolutely no way I am going to be happy when I see quality control volunteers skipping steps that policy requires or recommends in their patrolling efforts.


 * Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hari Parbat photographs
Hello J Thanks for pointing out the missing copyright tags. I have now added the right copyright tags to two of the images as I am the one who shot those images. As for the third image (old photograph of Hari Parbat). That's a shot of an old photograph present inside the temple complex where it is treated as an a object of devotion. There is no information about its actual photographer but the way the structure looks in the photograph, the image is more than 100 years old. The actual image must be in Public Domain now based on Indian copyright laws. I am ready to change its licensing information to Public domain if you are ok with that. Thanks! Vinayak.razdan (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Vinayak.razdan

Thanks for the help! I have added the required Tag. Vinayak.razdan (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Vinayak.razdan

Hotelciprianilogo.gif
non-free media rationale added as requested. I did upload this info with the first version of this image but I guess it must delete it all when you uploaded a new version of the image. Noted for next time.Thanks PurpleSpiderSpider (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Thks

Fabric logo.png
Hi J Thanks very much much for the advice. I'm new to this! I have replaced the image with a smaller version - is this acceptable now?

Can you also explain why when i insert it into the Infobox on Fabric (club) as Image:Fabric logo.png its actually say Image before the logo - i can't understand why. Can you advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamface25 (talk • contribs)

Image:Boilermaker special.jpg
Hey. Thanks a lot for changing the copyright information on the picture. Since you have already made changes, is it necessary that I do anything more about this issue?

Thanks. Jainrajat11 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not a logo but is a mascot of the university. I don't know how to categorize this...Jainrajat11 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgrave Mill.jpg
I'm new at this game. I took this image in 2006. It's black and white because it takes too much space in colour. In any case colour adds nothing to the content so why not b&w? What do you want me to do? User:Oldhamhistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldhamhistory (talk • contribs)

Image:Joseph Wright.jpg
I'm new! This image is a member of my family that was passed down to me. As far as I have been able to ascertain, mine is the only such image in existence. It was taken in 1915 or earlier. On reflection, I accept that the licence that I chose cannot be correct. The studio that took the image went out of business in 1920. Who, if anyone owns copyright and what is the appropriate licence? User:Oldham history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldhamhistory (talk • contribs)

Image:Joseph Wright
Mmmm. The image in the book is very small. About thirty photo images are produced side by side on a page no more than 8 inches by 6 inches. As a result, each image is about 1cm square. I don't know what they called them in 1913 but today they would be thumbnails. The quality is also very poor. I am happy to have Jospeh Wright.jpg removed if you have no further suggestion but it seems a shame when there is no one around to claim copyright. Ian (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

query
re: Image:N645074036 678813 8639.jpg and Image:N645074036 678811 6668.jpg

All images I have posted and will post on wikipedia are taken by me with my own camera, I have put that I hold the copyright to them and sourced them as being taken by me yet I am still getting messages that these photos are to be deleted in 48 hours if I do not cite sources but I have already done this, could you please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouha (talk • contribs)

re:Query

thanks for replying, I am new to this, how do I change the description on a photo I have already uploaded? :)Clouha (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)clouha

Correct Rationales and Updates to Image:20K Bomb.PNG
I reuploaded Image:MarkLamarr.jpg, Image:Ineson.jpg and Image:IainLee.jpg with proper copyright rationales like you said on my page. I have also updated Image:20K Bomb.PNG by replacing the BBC2 ident shown here with a solid black background. Is that better now? --  20000  Talk/Contributions 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I'm sorry about my outbursts. I promise I won't "steal" again. --  20000  Talk/Contributions 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Re:Apologies
Yes, please. --  20000  Talk/Contributions 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb
I have been through the logs and he has uploaded a 'tonne' (what a pun) of copyvios. You might want to contribute to the discussions (there are lots) here. Have a great day, mate. :) <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, most of them are replaceable fair use and I am going around and tagging as such. I'd suggest someone needs to educate him on our core policies, I might link him later. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright avoidance annoys me also. That sounds much too technical. But yes, so much for his dreams of becoming an administrator like his front page says (at least for the near future). I must concede, I usually would assume good faith but lying about copyright generally indicates a liability to WP. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guidance Barnstar

 * Oh cock, I didn't realize you were an admin. I am hoping to resubmit myself soon (when Rudget gets active again or something) for adminship, but yes, I will certainly come to you when I need sysop attention. Or burping. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear lord people are going to hate me if they have this page in their watchlist. Don't worry about the mantlepiece, I am copying it over now. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure will. Have a nice day, mate. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any chance...
... of a quick deletion on these? I got reverted once, and have a fear that it's liable to happen again. I presume that the reverting account is a sock of 20K, but I don't have much evidence. Here are the pages: User:20K, User_talk:20K <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a winrar of the internets, sir. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
I am not really certain of checkuser at all, but it seems simple enough. I am going to have to go in a minute (working at an internet cafe in Switzerland at the moment, not my usual Geordie surroundings) but if you create it either today or tomorrow I will more than happily back you up. If you want me to create it tomorrow, just message me - I should be on for around 10 more minutes. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be able to stick around a little longer tonight, if not then meh. But yeah, just hook me up with the details when it's done and I'll get right on it. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   20:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a checkuser would be a good idea, but only on the basis that more evidence was brought forward (which seems easy enough, really). <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, I think a post on the noticeboards would be a good idea. This guy is everywhere 20K is, I have next to no doubt he is a sock. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this - here is some solid evidence. 'Scarface' uploaded Image:20K Alt.JPG, and it was subsequently deleted. Does the title imply that he is a sock of 20K? Does the image throw light on anything? <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   21:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks!

I am allowed to delete all that crap off my talk page now? (noob here...) haha Ibanez Guy (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mall Police
Please head over to my talk on username mall police to chat of such topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mall Police (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked at last, blocked at last, heavens to betsy he is blocked at last
Link. That was more straightforward than I thought it would be. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   08:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cincloramphus mathewsi.jpg
I have deleted the above image as, on Flickr, it was licensed for non-commercial use only. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry. I thought I was using it correctly as a CC image. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry? I Don't Think So!


How can you verify that Tony Montana "Scarface" is a sock? He's been here since February. Please answer below. Anyway, here's some cookies to make you feel happy. -- 92-Deayton (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.180.152 (talk • contribs)
 * Checkuser evidence. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't sign your messages as being from someone else, it's very misleading. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Ownership
The image Russ.atro .jpg used on the Russula atropurpurea page is owned by myself. Cheers.Luridiformis (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Brewers Schedule
Image:Brewers-76sked.JPG

I have this pocket schedule from 1976 and thought it would be interesting to have on the 1976 season page, so I took a picture of it. MasterCharge doesn't even exist anymore, (now it's Mastercard), besides, is it wrong to show a schedule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrouse03 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's not needed, but are any photos really "needed", probably not, but you probably have a better grasp on what is legal and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrouse03 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New User
--Mall Police (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I am a new user but please come over to my page to start a CHAT about police in any form (the subject changes every 2 weeks) thank you!

AN/I
You might be interested in my post here. Hoping you are well. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Ase '<font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;">nine ' '' 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this. :) <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Ase '<font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;">nine ' '' 19:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable image rights
Because you do a lot of work dealing with uploaded images that have questionable distribution rights, perhaps you might take a quick look at a couple I came across while fixing random article errors. These images and  claim to be distributed under free art license or taken as a fair use screenshot, but both pictures are captioned all rights reserved (actually, typo'ed as 'resevred) for DIDA TV. 'Twould seem to be a dichotomy in use permissions. The contributor's history shows other recent image uploads of a similar nature. Just thought I'd mention this to you for possible action, given your expertise as an editor who regularly deals with image issues. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

image copyrights
Hi. I wrote the page about tethered particle motion, and I created the images and the videos of this page. I hope that now I marked the copyright properly. If not, please tell me what should I do. Thank you, Deltafunction (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Milt May image
Hi,

I apologize for the non-free image. I thought that it was a free image, but upon later review, found that it wasn't. Thank you for catching it. If I mess anything else up, please let me know. Thanks --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Relentless-logo 256x93.png
Thanks for that. I didn't know about logo fur. - X201 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:India House today.jpg
I have left a reply in the deletion talk page. Please have a look. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its fine dont worry :). Thanks for the link. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn
Mr. Milburn: Blaylock and Goldwater photo was given to me by Len E. Blaylock of Perryville, AR. It has no copyright. It was taken by a friend of Blaylock in 1985.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Novakolympics.jpg]]
Thank you for deleting the image I uploaded. <font face="" color="maroon">tabor -<font face="" color="000000">drop me a line 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Blaylock photos
All four photos were sent to me by Mr. Blaylock with permission to use them. I told him I would return them after use. I presume that he probably paid for the 1943 military photo. The other picturs were taken by friends or family members.Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gwatney.jpg
This image you have tagged that I uploaded is also being used on wikinews, so what exactly is the issue? (Tjliles2007 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Wikinews and wikipedia are part of wikimedia, I doubt the rules are different between the two sites. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Highfields Images 2
I've listed my support for the deletion of Image:Matlock 1.jpg and Image:Matlock 2.jpg so that should speed up the deletion, I've heard back from the copyright owner of the other images you deleted and it gives explicit permission under Template:Attribution, So I'm going to forward the permission email to the adress you gave me, do I need to reupload the images or not? <font face="Batik Regular">Highfields (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but do I reupload them or leave them as deleted <font face="Batik Regular">Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, Thanks for all your help, I shouldn't need to bother you again... <font face="Batik Regular">Highfields (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:ICA headquarters DC.JPG
Not sure what to do to fix this. My co-worker, Sam Luna, took the photo and told me to put it under the GFDL. What do I need to do to make that clear and keep the photo from being deleted? Thanks. Msclguru (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Book jacket question
Hi there. I've just created a new page about Christopher Buckley's next novel, Supreme Courtship. I noticed that the book version of Thank You For Smoking has a book jacket pictured, and here is the. Would this be enough for me to do the same with this new novel, that is, locate the image from the publisher's website or Amazon and upload it using this same explanation? Thanks in advance. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mm 2006 shirt front.png
On my talk page you mentioned you removed the image I uploaded from the MechMania page because the source wasn't specified. However, I specified the source (MechMania) and author (Sameer Sundresh), so I'm very confused why you think I didn't.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here, but I got this image file directly from the original creator himself, Sameer Sundresh, (we worked on the MechMania project together) thus I cannot cite a website as you request. I also had already tagged the image with a license (public domain), so I'm not sure why you asked about that either.

If you're still not satisfied, can you please tell me precisely what you want me to change on the file's description page?

Joseph.Re (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cajkovski zlatko.jpg
Thanks for pointing out the size issue. :) I find images dreadfully confusing and prefer to do as little as possible with them. I was shocked by the size of that one when uploaded! If you have a moment and inclination, would you mind letting me know if the FUR on that one looks okay? I've only thrice written a FUR of my own, since my usual album work handily comes with a preset. If it's not convenient, I'll ask at WP:MCQ, which is where I was going with it. I feel like a total n00b with that stuff. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. I've added the author information from the Croatia image page. Hopefully that will do it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brick lane wallpaper.jpg
I have already given a strong description of why it falls into the category to be used as a non-free use rationale image on the image it self if you scroll down. And is only being used in one article, plus I think the image needs to be shown in the article, because this is the only significant film that has come out, which is based on the Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom, I think it is suitable that it can be used so it can illustrate it by this image, and gives the reader a good idea of the film and that the film was significant in terms of it publicity and controversy, and the cover is not the official. M Miah (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it adds quite a significance to the article because, say if readers read the description given about the film called 'Brick Lane', they would probably think it is an unofficial film created by Bengalis and not really sold worldwide, and by providing an image on the article, i think it can make a significance to the whole of the article, because the whole history of Bangladeshis is based on this street, and by having an image of the film will show how significant it was of the history of Bangladeshis living in Brick Lane, and being recognized in this very film called after the street of where these people lived at. M Miah (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no article covering the Brick Lane movie, so it is pretty reasonable to use the image on that article, because it is one of the recognition of British Bangladeshis. No other alternative is available for the image, the poster is not the official and is an edited version, by deleting the release date and no further information of the movie, but just the title and image, so it is for the purpose of viewing not promoting. Mohsin 21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK then how about a third opinion then, even though I may be wrong :) Mohsin 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Image:OsborneHouseBeach.jpg
The watermark was added after the image was taken for reference to English Heritage, to check authenticity that it is my photo, please see the registration of the car in the photo and verify it against my other image uploaded on the Mitsubushi Challenger article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.110.158 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth
Regarding the above, I strongly believe one of the participants is a ban evading sock per evidence presented at Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)